tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 14 13:56:05 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

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

Agnieszka Solska wrote:

> There is another type 5 suffix (-lu'), indicating "that the subject is unknown,
 > indefinite, and/or general" (TKD 4.2.5).
> 
> Any ideas on whether it could be used together with {-ghach} to create nouns
 > expressing something like "the process or act of doing something" or 
"the state of
 > being something, e.g.:
> 
> ?qetlu'ghach  - "running, (the process or act of) running"
> ?lajlu'ghach   - "acceptance, (the process or act of) accepting"
> ?ghetlu'ghach  - "pretense, (the process or act of) pretending"
> ?jIvlu'ghach   - "ignorance, (the state of) being ignorant"
> ?Doghlu'ghach  - "foolishness, (the state of) being foolish"

I think these are flat-out wrong, for the same reason you wouldn't say 
*{bItlhutlhtaHghach}. {-lu'} has to do with the agent of the verb, but 
the verb doesn't seem to be fully conjugated before {-ghach} is added to it.

In any case, the nouns you propose are simply what the verbs would 
become if they had noun counterparts:

*qet  "running"
laj   "acceptance" (this is an actual word)
*ghet "pretense"
*jIv  "ignorance"
*Dogh "foolishness"

And they are what you get if you improperly nominalize them with {-ghach}:

*qetghach  "running"
*lajghach  "acceptance"
*ghetghach "pretense"
*jIvghach  "ignorance"
*Doghghach "foolishness"

This is demonstrated by applying {-ghach} properly:

qettaHghach  "continuous running"
lajtaHghach  "continuous acceptance"
ghettaHghach "continuous pretense"
jIvtaHghach  "continuous ignorance"
DoghtaHghach "continuou foolishness"

There are suffix combinations that just don't work, and I think 
{-lu'ghach} this is one of them. I also don't believe in {-lu'wI'}.

-- 
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush

Back to archive top level