tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 15 14:00:47 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: {-ghach} revisited (yet again!)

Christopher Doty (suomichris@gmail.com)



I suppose I meant more that, based on Okrand's description, we ought
to *expect* words with <-ghach> to be ubiquitous in Klingon speech,
not necessarily that they were.

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:26, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> naHQun:
>>> <-ghach> is a whole different story all together.
>>> Simple rule: Don't use it unless you know what you're doing.
>>>   [snip]
>>> For most of us, this means don't use -ghach except for words found in
>>> the dictionary, until you have a really good feel for it.
>
> Chris:
>>It's funny that you say that, because the sense I got from that
>>interview (?) with Okrand is that -ghach is ubiquitous and ends up on
>>all kinds of words.  Not some (e.g., bare stems), but a whole lot.  I
>>hardly think saying "don't use it unless you know what you are doing"
>>is the message that Okrand is conveying there...
>
> Whoa... hardly "ubiquitous"!
>
> Except for the TKD section on {-ghach} (TKD 4.2.9 IIRC?) and an interview about using {-ghach} in HolQeD (HQ 3.3) - where you would expect to find isolated examples, properly and improperly formed - Okrand actually uses it in only ONE sentence (i.e. {quvHa'ghach} "dishonor"):
>
>  qaStaHvIS wej puq poHmey vav puqloDpu' puqloDpu'chaj je quvHa'moH
>   vav quvHa'ghach
>  The dishonor of the father dishonors his sons and their sons for
>   three generations. TKW
>
> Although theoretically productive, {-ghach}'ed nouns are almost never used in "authentic" texts.  Perhaps such nouns strike the average Klingon warrior as recondite, sesquipedalian or even cacophonous, which would explain its eschewal.  <g>
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Canon Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
>
>






Back to archive top level