tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 16 10:13:11 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 (david@trimboli.name) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



Agnieszka Solska wrote:
> jISIv:
> 
>> 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.:
>>
>> ?Doghlu'ghach  - "foolishness, (the state of) being foolish"
> 
> jang SuStel:
>  
>> 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.
> 
> Thanks, SuStel, for your response, especially for pointing out that verbs with 
> {-lu'} and verbs with prefixes have to do with the agent of the verb, and therefore 
> might be subject to the same restrictions. 
> 
> However, based on what MO said in the interview on {-ghach} in HolQeD 3.3:10-13, 
> I see no reason why {prefix-verb-suffix-ghach} forms (and possibly {verb-lu'-ghach} 
> forms too) should be regarded as "flat-out wrong." After all, Okrand merely calls 
> them "weird". This might be interpreted as understatement for "wrong" except 
> that Okrand [HolQeD 3.3:13] actually says that they are not unheard of:
> 
>> just as bare stem + {-ghach} is okay, but weird, prefix + verb (with or  
>> without a suffix) + {-ghach} is even weirder. But not unheard of (…)

I think you misunderstand me. **{bIquvtaHghach} is just as wrong as 
**{quvghach}: they're not real words. When I say "flat-out wrong," I 
don't mean they can't be used; I just mean they're not valid words. This 
is what Okrand means when he says they're "weird" or "marked." (Just 
calling them "weird" without any reference to what "weird" means would 
make these forms unusable in EVERY situation.)

The rules of English allow us to construct words like **badify and 
**badification, but that doesn't mean they're REAL words. They're wrong. 
This is exactly the same problem as that of **{bIquvtaHghach} and 
**{quvghach}. The rules allow it, but it's wrong. You would UNDERSTAND 
it if you heard it, but you'd recognize that it's wrong. You would only 
use it in certain circumstances—and we don't really know anything about 
the circumstances under which Klingons would find creating these "nonce 
words" accpetable.

I think [verb + -lu' + -ghach] falls into the same category. The rules 
allow it, but it's wrong, for the same reason that **{bIquvtaHghach} is 
wrong. I also don't think that the formation carries any information 
that [verb + -ghach] doesn't carry.

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







Back to archive top level