[2658] in tlhIngan-Hol
{-ghach}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Jan 20 01:22:44 1994
Errors-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: dls9@aol.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 01:14:45 EST
Errors-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Reply-To: <dls9@aol.com>
Feel free to chew me out if I'm out of line, but it seems to me that a few
good-intentioned folks have misinterpreted Proechel's article "Forming Nouns
from Verbs" (HolQeD 2:4). What I seem to be observing is that wherever people
want to use a word which should be a noun in their sentence, but is only
listed as a verb in TKD, tack on any available verb suffix so they can
nominalize it.
For example: {val} --> {valtaHghach}
This seems highly redundant to me. What's wrong with simply considering {val}
both a noun and verb. That seems to remain within Okrandian bounds of proper
Klingon.
I consider the use of {-ghach} ONLY necessary IF the verb in question already
has a semantically mandatory suffix attached to it.
If one wants to nominalize {naDHa'} "discommend", it must tack on {-ghach},
but {naD} alone could most likely be either a noun or verb:
"commend/commendation".
To back this point, I offer this sample sentence which came to me in a
semi-delirium while trudging thru the snow the other day.
{munuQ bIr}
There is no question as to how {bIr} is used here. But I do realize that some
instances can be feasibly encountered in which this noun/verb status of a
particular word can cause ambiguity. No prob. It's not like we've never dealt
with ambiguity in Hol before. But in those instances, I would see where the
{-taHghach} or {-qu'ghach} might come in handy. Otherwise, I say, "What's the
point of anything+{-ghach} if Okrand has implied that almost all verbs can be
nouns.
Another feeling I have toward nominalized verbs is how Anglicized a
translation full of them sounds to me. Nominalizing is something we do a lot
of in English, much like our frequent use of forms of "to be". I don't feel a
great need for {-ghach} in Klingon, at least not nearly as much as others
seem to. On the other hand, I tend to rearrange words in sentences to the
point of retaining original semantic value, but bearing minute resemblance to
the original sentence in the sense of exact wording.
ANYHOW, I'm done jabbering. Like I said, chew me out if it seems necessary,
but these are my opinions.
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
