[108993] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] KLBC - How to say "I like to do/doing something"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Feb 13 23:39:35 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:30:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAEr0j+RMMufZ5PvSzmnSJdtKUKsGg7+-PVgq-zGjuftv11CYtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============4387034668524757160==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------6005DC6828068287AC50CE42"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------6005DC6828068287AC50CE42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
The reason people suggest avoiding *-ghach* is to avoid the trap that
you just fell into: adding a suffix (usually *-taH*) just because you're
supposed to, but not really meaning that suffix.
*vuttaHghach* doesn't mean /cooking,/ it means /an ongoing act of
cooking,/ or /continuous cooking./ That's not what you mean when you
want to say /I like to cook./ What you'd want to say is **vutghach
vIparHa',* but you can't say that.
Make no mistake: adding *-ghach* to a bare verb is /wrong,/ even though
Okrand simply called it "marked." Okrand tells us in /HolQeD 3:3/
<http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1994-09-holqed-03-3-a.txt&q=marked>
that saying **belghach* is like saying /*pleasureness./ We all
understand it, but you don't say it. Klingons might not take it as badly
as we would take /*pleasureness,/ but it's still not right.
The idea behind *-ghach* is this. Imagine you've got a verb like *bel,*
and you've got a magic nominalizer button that, when pressed, turns the
verb *bel* into the noun *bel.* Imagine this button works on any verb,
but for the moment forget about verbs that don't have known noun
counterparts (like *tlhutlh*). Stick a suffix on the verb, and press the
button. When we put, say, *-taH* onto *bel* to get *beltaH* /be
continuously pleased/ and then press the button, nothing happens. The
presence of the suffix blocks our nominalization button. So Okrand comes
along and gives us a magic suffix, *-ghach,* which when stuck on the end
counteracts the presence of the blocking suffix and lets the nominalizer
button work again. We add the suffix and push the button and ZAP! we get
*beltaHghach*/ongoing pleasure./
The point of *-ghach* is to hide the verb's other suffixes from the
nominalization process, so you can turn the suffixed verb into a noun again.
Now, the funny thing is, this process works to counteract suffixes and
nominalize verbs that don't actually have noun counterparts! So while I
can't use *tlhutlh* to mean /a drink,/ I CAN say
*tlhutlhtaHghach*/ongoing drinking./
So people find themselves wanting to use *-ghach* on verbs that don't
have noun counterparts, but they're not actually interested in
counteracting suffixes; they just want a noun form of the verb. But, the
rules say, you can't really use *-ghach* without a suffix. So they go
and pick the one that least changes the meaning of the verb (usually
*-taH*) just so they can get access to *-ghach,* even though they're not
using it for its real purpose.
/*TL;DR: WHENEVER YOU FEEL AN URGE TO USE -ghach ON A BARE VERB, DON'T
USE -ghach AT ALL. */Find some other way to say what you want to say,
like sentences-as-objects.
And no, don't put prefixes on verbs with *-ghach.* We don't think you're
supposed to do that.
On 2/13/2017 4:05 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion!
>
> I was a bit hesitant about -ghach because I remember a discussion
> about it being a bit tricky to use for a beginner, or possibly "bad
> Klingon".
>
> But, I guess then if it's ok to use it it could be:
>
> vuttaHghach vIparHa'
>
> (by the way, I don't need to use any prefix in a nominalized verb, right?)
>
> Thanks again!
>
> ~mughwI'
>
>
>
> 2017-02-12 23:08 GMT+01:00 MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com
> <mailto:lytlesw@gmail.com>>:
>
> How about using a noun derived from a verb (by adding -ghach,
> e.g.) as the object? It involves deciding which other suffix(es)
> to use so that it doesn't sound odd.
>
> lay'tel SIvten
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de
> <mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> Okay, since others have broken the KLBC-barrier already, and
> our current BG may be at shore leave, I'll answer this:
>
> Am 09.02.2017 um 13:31 schrieb Aurélie Demonchaux:
>
> We have some examples of <par> and <parHa'> being used
> with nouns or
> pronouns but I can't find any canon source where they
> apply to verbs.
>
> Do you use {'e'} or nothing in those cases?
>
>
> I will not go into alternatives like {tIv} "enjoy", but simple
> answer
> the question grammatically:
>
> The verb {neH} is the only exception for omitting {'e'}. This
> means that it is correct to say
>
> {jIvut 'e' vIparHa'} "I like that I cook."
>
> Yes, indeed you may think that this literally means "I do like
> the fact that I am cooking at this moment", but there is no
> "special" construction to express the common feeling of "I
> like surfing in general". It's the English that's strange, not
> the Klingon.
>
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------6005DC6828068287AC50CE42
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p>The reason people suggest avoiding <b>-ghach</b> is to avoid
the trap that you just fell into: adding a suffix (usually <b>-taH</b>)
just because you're supposed to, but not really meaning that
suffix.</p>
<p><b>vuttaHghach</b> doesn't mean <i>cooking,</i> it means <i>an
ongoing act of cooking,</i> or <i>continuous cooking.</i>
That's not what you mean when you want to say <i>I like to
cook.</i> What you'd want to say is <b>*vutghach vIparHa',</b>
but you can't say that.</p>
<p>Make no mistake: adding <b>-ghach</b> to a bare verb is <i>wrong,</i>
even though Okrand simply called it "marked." Okrand tells us in
<a
href="http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1994-09-holqed-03-3-a.txt&q=marked"><i>HolQeD
3:3</i></a> that saying <b>*belghach</b> is like saying <i>*pleasureness.</i>
We all understand it, but you don't say it. Klingons might not
take it as badly as we would take <i>*pleasureness,</i> but
it's still not right.<br>
</p>
<p>The idea behind <b>-ghach</b> is this. Imagine you've got a
verb like <b>bel,</b> and you've got a magic nominalizer button
that, when pressed, turns the verb <b>bel</b> into the noun <b>bel.</b>
Imagine this button works on any verb, but for the moment forget
about verbs that don't have known noun counterparts (like <b>tlhutlh</b>).
Stick a suffix on the verb, and press the button. When we put,
say, <b>-taH</b> onto <b>bel</b> to get <b>beltaH</b> <i>be
continuously pleased</i> and then press the button, nothing
happens. The presence of the suffix blocks our nominalization
button. So Okrand comes along and gives us a magic suffix, <b>-ghach,</b>
which when stuck on the end counteracts the presence of the
blocking suffix and lets the nominalizer button work again. We
add the suffix and push the button and ZAP! we get <b>beltaHghach</b><i>
ongoing pleasure.</i></p>
<p>The point of <b>-ghach</b> is to hide the verb's other
suffixes from the nominalization process, so you can turn the
suffixed verb into a noun again.</p>
<p>Now, the funny thing is, this process works to counteract
suffixes and nominalize verbs that don't actually have noun
counterparts! So while I can't use <b>tlhutlh</b> to mean <i>a
drink,</i> I CAN say <b>tlhutlhtaHghach</b><i> ongoing
drinking.</i></p>
<p>So people find themselves wanting to use <b>-ghach</b> on
verbs that don't have noun counterparts, but they're not
actually interested in counteracting suffixes; they just want a
noun form of the verb. But, the rules say, you can't really use
<b>-ghach</b> without a suffix. So they go and pick the one that
least changes the meaning of the verb (usually <b>-taH</b>)
just so they can get access to <b>-ghach,</b> even though
they're not using it for its real purpose.</p>
<p><i><b>TL;DR: WHENEVER YOU FEEL AN URGE TO USE -ghach ON A BARE
VERB, DON'T USE -ghach AT ALL. </b></i>Find some other way
to say what you want to say, like sentences-as-objects.</p>
<p>And no, don't put prefixes on verbs with <b>-ghach.</b> We
don't think you're supposed to do that.<br>
</p>
<br>
On 2/13/2017 4:05 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEr0j+RMMufZ5PvSzmnSJdtKUKsGg7+-PVgq-zGjuftv11CYtQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Thanks for the
suggestion!</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I was a bit
hesitant about -ghach because I remember a discussion about it
being a bit tricky to use for a beginner, or possibly "bad
Klingon".</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">But, I guess
then if it's ok to use it it could be:</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="times new roman, serif">vuttaHghach
vIparHa'</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">(by the way, I
don't need to use any prefix in a nominalized verb, right?)</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Thanks again!</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">~mughwI'</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2017-02-12 23:08 GMT+01:00
MorphemeAddict <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lytlesw@gmail.com" target="_blank">lytlesw@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:courier
new,monospace">How about using a noun derived from a
verb (by adding -ghach, e.g.) as the object? It involves
deciding which other suffix(es) to use so that it
doesn't sound odd. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:courier
new,monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:courier
new,monospace">lay'tel SIvten</div>
</div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:25
PM, Lieven <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:levinius@gmx.de" target="_blank">levinius@gmx.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Okay,
since others have broken the KLBC-barrier already,
and our current BG may be at shore leave, I'll
answer this:<span><br>
<br>
Am 09.02.2017 um 13:31 schrieb Aurélie
Demonchaux:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex"> We have some examples
of <par> and <parHa'> being used
with nouns or<br>
pronouns but I can't find any canon source
where they apply to verbs.<br>
<br>
Do you use {'e'} or nothing in those cases?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span> I will not go into alternatives like {tIv}
"enjoy", but simple answer<br>
the question grammatically:<br>
<br>
The verb {neH} is the only exception for omitting
{'e'}. This means that it is correct to say<br>
<br>
{jIvut 'e' vIparHa'} "I like that I cook."<br>
<br>
Yes, indeed you may think that this literally
means "I do like the fact that I am cooking at
this moment", but there is no "special"
construction to express the common feeling of "I
like surfing in general". It's the English that's
strange, not the Klingon.<span
class="m_-7000954861079759648HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
</font></span><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------6005DC6828068287AC50CE42--
--===============4387034668524757160==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============4387034668524757160==--
