tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 17 15:33:01 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 \(Jon Brown\) ( [KLI Member]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Boozer" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun 

> qe'San:
>>>  Sule'choHmeH yantaHghachDaj bobejnIS.  ghIq boqeqlI'chu'
>>>  in order for you to become exceptional you need to watch his
>>>   sword manipulation then train perfectly
> SuStel:
>>Your sentence is correct, but you don't need -ghach for this.
>>   Sule'choHmeH yantaH 'e' bobejnIS; ghIq peqeqnISchu'lI'.
>>> 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...
>>> 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.

That was the intention... The students were being told to watch how he 
weilded (manipulated) his sword so that they then train to become excellent 
like the swordsman.

> Two thoughts...
> I'm not sure {-lI'} is appropriate here.  What is the "known goal or ... 
> definite stopping point"
> (cf. TKD p.42) of {qeq} "practice, train, prepare"?  Proficiency?  Or just 
> the end of the training
> session (e.g. 4:00)?  A skilled warrior trains his entire life so as not 
> to become rusty.

I knew I needed to indicate continuing action and did wonder about the 
appropriatemess of -lI' but thought the concept was more like see how this 
is done practice until you can do the same. That's why I thought this was 
specific enough to indicate a target.

> WRT {yan} "wield, use or manipulate a sword" also consider {raQ} 
> "manipulate by hand, handle":
> KGT 79:  The closest to a general term in this realm may be the verb 
> {raQ}, which means "
> manipulate by hand, handle". It can be applied to carving, sculpting, 
> metalworking, and the
> like but is really much less specific, referring to activities that 
> involve having some control
> over some object. For example, in addition to saying {betleH yan} ("He/she 
> wields a bat'leth"), one could say {betleH raQ} ("He/she controls a 
> bat'leth").
> To me this would focus more on his technique rather than the idea of 
> wielding a sword (vs. shooting a disruptor).

Although I see what you mean I was trying to write with another use of 
nominalization {-ghach} and being a fencer I wanted to be specific about 
sword manipulation rather than any other sort.


Back to archive top level