tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 11:17:07 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Question about Klingon books (e.g., Gilgamesh et al.)

Christopher Doty (

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 07:18, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <> wrote:
> We lack any grammatical tools to
> nominalize a verb's object -- which I suppose is reasonable,
> considering that many verbs never have objects and no verbs *must*
> have objects.

I don't think this is true, as you can use a relative clause for some of this:

'oH leghbe'lu'bogh

"It that is not seen (by anyone :)"

I'm not sure about the "act" interpretation of -ghach; I'll have to go
reread that interview with Okrand, but the sense I got from that was
that -ghach can mean a whole giant pile of stuff, not just the act of
doing something (e.g., it can mean the -ness or quality of something,
or the outcome of something, etc.)

Back to archive top level