[2659] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: {-ghach}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Jan 20 01:40:53 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: nsn@vis.mu.OZ.AU (Nick NICHOLAS)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 17:30:33 EDT
In-Reply-To: <9401200114.tn196621@aol.com>; from "dls9@aol.com" at Jan 20, 94 1
:14 am
batlh choja', dls9@aol.com quv:
=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.
You're not out of line, but you are, I feel, wrong ;) . The noun val is
not attested, and given the conservative approach to Klingon favoured on
this list (at least, that much was Krankor's initiative), it's preferable
to use -taHghach, clumsy and unidiomatic but grammatical, than val (n),
possibly nonexistant.
You're quite right in pointing out that this use of -ghach is inconsistent
with Okrand's intent, as far as we can guess it (*sigh*) from the TKD
appendix; when I come to write my article on how Klingon has evolved/may
evolve here, I'll mention this. This use of -ghach, though, is motivated
by political reasons (it adheres to canon more than val (n) would.)
=Otherwise, I say, "What's the
=point of anything+{-ghach} if Okrand has implied that almost all verbs can be
=nouns.
Oh, had he implied it, everything would be hunky-dory; but the way I read
the passage in question, he didn't.
Lawrence has mentioned that this topic is discussed in HolQeD --- in fact,
it was in a letter in the same issue.
=Another feeling I have toward nominalized verbs is how Anglicized a
=translation full of them sounds to me.
I suspect you're right. It'll be interesting to see whether Klingon as a
whole will move as one or splinter on this issue...
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breather {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
nsn@krang.vis.mu.oz.au -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias
