tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 14 12:07:36 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

Steven Boozer (

>> 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}.

TKD 176:  In Klingon, there are many instances of nouns and verbs being identical in form [...] It is not known if all verbs can be used as nouns, but it is known that verbs ending in suffixes (such as {-Ha'} undo in {lobHa'} "disobey") can never be nouns. The Type 9 suffix {-ghach}, however, can be attached to such verbs in order to form nouns.

Canon Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level