tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 14 09:42:51 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun phrase

Terrence Donnelly (terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net) [KLI Member]



--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> 
> I.e. {lo'laHghach}, {lo'laHbe'ghach}, {naDHa'ghach} and
> {naDqa'ghach} (all from TKD).  In TKW he used
> {quvHa'ghach} "dishonor" in our sole example of a
> "{-ghach}ed noun" in a sentence:
> 
>   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
> 
> Note that all five of these have another suffix between the
> verb and {-ghach}.
> 

What's interesting about these is that these are different types of suffixes. From MO's description, it sounded like you couldn't use a naked verb plus {-ghach} because some sort of time or state was implied by {-ghach} that the naked verb didn't convey, so one had to use one of the "aspectual" suffixes, such as {-taH} or {-qa'}. But the only aspectual suffix in the above group is {-qa'}, and the others are more like modal suffixes.  So maybe the need for an intervening suffix is more of a formal requirement than something inherent in the meaning of {-ghach}.

-- ter'eS









Back to archive top level