tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 15 14:46:26 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

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

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

On 12/15/2009 4:58 PM, Christopher Doty wrote:
> 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.

I don't get that impression from the interview, but neither do I get the 
impression of not using it unless you're especially skilled. The latter 
is merely (good) advice given on this list, because the unskilled 
invariably screw up {-ghach}.

I find {-ghach} to be a useful tool, but not ubiquitous. The 
verb-dominant nature of Klingon is usually overemphasized on this list 
(and used for all sorts of absurd justifications), but there is a grain 
of truth to it. Where some languages like English like to convert all 
sorts of things into noun phrases, Klingon doesn't seem to have that 
tendency. (We have seen titles as verb clauses several times, for instance.)

So use {-ghach} when you very specifically want to talk about a THING, 
abstract or otherwise. Where English uses endings to nominalize 
adjectives, Klingon does not have to nominalize verbs with {-ghach}. 
(E.g., don't bother talking about "happiness" in Klingon unless you're 
actually addressing the idea of happiness; stick with "being happy" 
otherwise.)

>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

Back to archive top level