tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 16 16:30:00 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']

qe'San (Jon Brown) wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>> 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..

I don't think "his drinking" is a nominalization of "he drinks." "His 
drinking" is a nominalization of "drink," which is then modified by the 
masculine, third-person, singular, possessive pronoun. You might call 
"his drinking" a noun-phrase counterpart of "he drinks," but it's not a 
direct nominalization of the verbal phrase.

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

Your sentence is correct, but you don't need -ghach for this.

Sule'choHmeH yantaH 'e' bobejnIS; ghIq peqeqnISchu'lI'.

(I think you meant to have another -nIS on the second sentence.)

> 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.

We have no rule against it, but again {'e'} makes this easier:

Sule'choHmeH yanchu'taH 'e' bobejnIS...

There is no noun-suffix equivalent of -chu', so the only qualification 
you could have would be a verbal adjective or relative clause.

> 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?

{qeq} does not imply "ongoing" or "ongoing toward a known stopping 
point." Leaving the -lI' off would not be wrong, but including it makes 
the sentence that much more specific in meaning.

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

Back to archive top level