tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 17 15:59:17 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 \(Jon Brown\) ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

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

>> 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.)

If I didn't mean to I did need it.. ;-)  Thanks also for the suffix order 
correction.

When translating the alternative I got:
"In order for you to become exceptional you need to watch this sword 
manipulating. then you need to train perfectly"

However what I was trying to convey was slightly different, at least I felt 
it was:
"In order for you to become exceptional you need to watch his sword 
manipulation then train perfectly"

However I am happy that it is not wrong as it was the use of -ghach I was 
tackling.

>> 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.

Sorry my fault .. Bearing in mind I was exploring the use -ghach, I was 
thinking that I wanted to use -chu' with -ghach but if someone had said that 
was wrong nouns do have  qualification suffixes although not with the same 
meaning... ie if I couldn't have used -chu' I was thinking my only option 
was {yantaHghachna'}but I really didn't like that.
>
>> 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.

Thanks it just confused me for a moment.. Just me over thinking the 
solution.

qe'San

Back to archive top level