tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 15 19:31:04 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

Doq (

Or if you are concerned that he's starting to drink,  
{tlhutlhchoHghachDaj}. Or his excessive drinking {tlhutlhqu'ghachDaj}.  
Or his repeated binge drinking {tlhutlhqa'qu'ghachDaj}. Or the grace  
with which he carries his inebriation {tlhutlhchu'ghachDaj}.


On Sep 14, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> (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