tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 16 16:04:33 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

qe'San \(Jon Brown\) (qeSan@btinternet.com) [KLI Member]



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Trimboli" <david@trimboli.name>
>
> 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.
>

Having asked the question about bItlhutlhghach and whether it needed -taH I 
should say that it seemed a strange concept but because I was trying to 
understand what was meant by nominalize and seeing the English definition 
refer to "His Drinking" as a nominalization of "He drinks" I had to ask if 
that applied to Klingon..

Reading all the canon and interviews as well as everyone's personal opinions 
I find I agree (for what that's worth) that Yes the -taH is required Marc 
Okrand even used tlhutlhtaH in the interview.   It's also there in a sense 
in the English with the -ing although I know that's not directly the same.

Back to the prefix I can see that's this can easily taken care of by the 
possessive suffixes anyway giving you something that is not weird and ticks 
all the boxes I was looking at.  So should I want to refer to "His Drinking" 
I will use {tlhutlhtaHDaj}

Or to take a different example an instructor might say to his students of a 
master swordsman.

Sule'choHmeH  yantaHghachDaj   bobejnIS.  ghIq  boqeqlI'chu'
in order for you to become exceptional you need to watch his sword 
manipulation then train perfectly

Assuming that I got that right I suppose I could even say

Sule'choHmeH  yanchu'taHghachDaj  bobejnIS.  ghIq  boqeqlI'chu'
in order for you to become exceptional you need to watch his perfect sword 
manipulation then train perfectly

Or can I add -chu'? It seems right to me to have verb qualification on the 
pre-nominalized verb rather than a qualification on the noun.

On another subject there, am I right to use -lI' on boqeqlI'chu' or does qeq 
imply an ongoing aspect by it's very meaning?

Thanks for all the help.

qe'San







Back to archive top level