[1640] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: tlhobghach
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Oct 11 02:29:13 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 02:25:34 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
> Question:
> would one say "informative" muja'laHghach?
My answer is "absolutely." Of course, it is actually more accurately
translated "informative to me." One might also say {Duja'laHghach}
and carry the same basic semantic value of inforamativity.
'ach qaStaHvIS wa' lup yIloS: Think about the use of "informative" in
tera'ngan Hol. The most common usage is with the verb "to be." However
this would imply a need for "to be informative." The remarkably simple
solution is to remove -ghach. Thus {muja'laH} = "It is informative to me."
Afaiac, the nominalizer has been abused and overused more than any other
suffix I know, on purpose! Some feel a need to say {ghaqghachlIjmo'}
it is immensely easier to say Daghaqmo'. The only reason they do it
is because it /sounds/ better in English.
'ach tera'ngan Hol SaHnISbe' tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI'
So there!
In addition to -mo', there is another suffix I abhor when used with -ghach:
That's -vaD. -ghachvaD is a cumbersome nominalized version of -meH, which
Okrand designated as the purpose clause marker, meaning "for (the purpose
of)."
Also there is some confusion among taghwI'pu'Hey dealing with 'e' and -ghach.
'e' is always used as an object. I hate to see a -ghach phrase used as
an object where 'e' is perfectly useful; or when 'e' is used as a subjec
qaS rut 'e' vIleghbej.
There, that's what I have to say about nominalizers. On one final note:
Which seems preferable?: nughojmoHwI' / ghojmoHwI'ma'
wa'DIch vIwIvqang!
!@#$%^&*(Guido1)*&^%$#@!
