tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 15 14:00:47 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-ghach} revisited (yet again!)
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-ghach} revisited (yet again!)
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:58:36 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UElHEuTKfMKZvFs9j39F+Zrg7TKtEWvww7FEU5Ha7UA=; b=I75Uk83LOHvBFgyt20zJxh4q73GM8rUMk7UJ5ZMyWeKYHrHnW38DonqETpkn2UhXYC AU86Sb5Vz3j8Z+Ocp2fMPrEES2BfZFvgikPG6Awfa95jhJkkgizZFaek7s6a2E8jR+tw keuxEbxNGA4iBJRwmSDuoa1hHrIQAC/jeKy28=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Y9g2yQXyaXCb7qo4rzYJJns0er3Cas0SuyEj4YwfBKTUgRb4BD6lu2pF4bnfhFSBa7 QTn4diKg4KaVJxN21wnydsng23dXyy9cEkq4iWBS6NxZnFXcE7stdQRpGyV6rZCnOgJw 5NwYW0e81PJ6MmEyqMi5MkoWcrSVeQoe/VvCw=
- In-reply-to: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A601138ACF2576@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A601138ACF2576@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
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 <[email protected]> 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
>
>
>
>
>