tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 14 11:03:07 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

Mark J. Reed ( [KLI Member]

(So for "his drinking" I would say {tlhutlhtaHghachDaj}.)

On 9/14/09, Mark J. Reed <> wrote:
> SuStel's analysis matches my thoughts.  *{quvghach} is wrong because
> it's redundant, something like "honorness". But *{tlhutlhghach} is
> wrong because it would mean the same thing as *{tlhutlh} the
> nonexistent noun.
> I might use {-ghach} on bare stems if I had a need to translate into
> Hol the slang habit of appending {-age} to words unnecessarily.  "How
> about some snackage to go with the gameage?"
> On 9/14/09, David Trimboli <> wrote:
>> Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>>> 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}.
>> I look at {-ghach} as a nominalizer that creates a new word stem. TKD
>> says something like (I don't have it with me), "It is not known if all
>> verbs can be nouns, but verbs with suffixes can never be nouns." In
>> other words, it is looking at words like {quv} and {naD} and saying that
>> they may be verbs that have become nouns, but the verbs {quvHa'} and
>> {naDHa'} (for instance) cannot ever be considered nouns. Using {-ghach}
>> lets you do exactly what you could do with {quv} and {naD}, but with
>> suffixes attached as well. {quv} the verb became {quv} the noun,  but
>> {quvHa'} the verb cannot become **{quvHa'} the noun, so you use {-ghach}
>> to explicitly mark that that's what you're doing: {quvHa'ghach}.
>> In theory, there could be a noun *{tlhutlh}, but there isn't one, and we
>> know this explicity from KGT. But the existence of {-ghach} still allows
>> you to work with the verb as if it had a noun counterpart anyway, but
>> only for *new* noun stems. *{tlhutlh} is not a noun, so **{tlhutlhghach}
>> is not a valid noun. It's considered marked, because **{tlhutlhghach}
>> would equal *{tlhutlh}, which doesn't exist. And if it did exist, you
>> wouldn't need **{tlhutlhghach}. And since {quv} and {naD} both exist as
>> nouns, you don't need **{quvghach} or **{naDghach}. So {-ghach} is only
>> used where you are adding verb suffixes to create a new word stem.
>> --
>> SuStel
>> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
> Mark J. Reed <>

Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <>

Back to archive top level