[2507] in tlhIngan-Hol
-ghach
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jan 11 20:21:19 1994
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: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 20:17:52 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhingan-hol@klingon.east.sun.com"
On the subject of GlenProechel's article and my opinions about The Nominalizer.
It is widely agreed that {-ghach} is highly overused. Personally I try to
restrict my usages to two main circumstances:
1) Nominalizing a verb followed by verb suffixes (this is a universal usage).
2) Clarifying that a certain word is definitely a noun, to disambiguate it
from the alternative one might find in interpreting it as a verb (note: I
use this rather sparingly, and it is probably not widely accepted usage).
If a word can be used as either a noun or verb, I wouldn't normally use
{-ghach}, but to clarify its status as a noun. Cases in which this occurs are
rare, however.
I believe, according to the lexical pattern of tlhIngan Hol, that many more
verbs may be used as nouns in a sentence, even if not listed as such in TKD.
I don't believe that {-ghach} should _ever_ be required, except when verb
suffixes are involved, and that is the limit of my opinion on restrictions of
The Nominalizer.
I've never really agreed with Krankor's usage of {-ghach} as a gerund marker.
Tacking subjects and objects onto nominalized verbs creates vaguity and
ambiguity. Krankor's main usage of {-ghach} was in comparatives, in which verbs
were the elements being compared. Comparatives are already screwy enough on
their own... but using {-ghach} for something as uncanonical as a 'sentence-
as-subject' construction is something I would not accept.
?{muQuchmoHpu' qaghItlhghach}, Cpt.Krankor, HolQeD (2:2).
At least it would not be swallowed easily.
If you don't mind, I should now like to come to grips with reality.
THERE IS NO SENTENCES-AS-SUBJECTS CONSTRUCTION IN KLINGON!!!!!!!!!!
yet.
Pestering Okrand is imesho a good idea. I'm sure he's quite capable of
developing his language further in vocabulary as well as in grammar. Altho,
he may have no real awareness as to how in-expressive his language is as yet.
Ask him to translate a book of th Bible or two, and we might see a slightly
more enthusiastic attitude in Okrand about further developing the language.
this is Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos, signing off---*
thank ewe
