[2679] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: {-ghach}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Jan 20 22:25:39 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 11:56:59 EST
On Jan 20, 1:17am, dls9@aol.com wrote:
> Subject: {-ghach}
>
> 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.
Speaking for myself, I never misinterpreted Proechel's article. I doubt
many others have misinterpreted it. Meanwhile, I very much agree with his
reading of {-ghach} being available only when used in combination with some
other verbal suffix. I missed it in all earlier readings of that passage
until Proechel's artical, and for that, I thank him.
Meanwhile, I very much disagree with his reading into those same words
the license to use any verb as a noun. Okrand was about as clear as he gets
in saying that it is NOT safe to assume that you can do that. Proechel was
living in active denial when he made that part up. I doubt that the ambiguity
would be acceptable, yet even if it were, TKD simply says you can't do it.
"It is not known if all verbs can be used as nouns..." So who decides which
verbs can be used as nouns? Answer: Okrand. Period (or should I say "Full
Stop"?).
The point is that in making that declaration, Proechel crossed a
threshold that required more authority than he carries. He was no longer
interpreting TKD. He was redefining one of the rules.
...
> 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
I don't know if this constitutes "chewing out" or not. I just think that
if you start using verbs as nouns just because it is more convenient than
recasting your sentences according to the more widely agreed upon rules of
the language, then you'll have to deal with people correcting your writings
all the time. You will often be misunderstood. Some people will be angered
that you are not making the effort to speak the language by the same rules
that everyone else uses.
If you like that sort of negative attention, then this is the right path
to take to get more of it for a long time. If your intent is to sway the
general opinion to match Proechel's suggestion, you will probably fail.
You said the sentence {munuQbe' bIr} just occurred to you. Well, "Staple
remover plasma scotch prints prickly spins stuff," just occurred to ME. That
doesn't make it language, even though it is made of words.
{munuQbe' bIr} is not quite Klingon. You could have said {jIbIrqu'be'}
or {jIbIr. munuQbe'.} Why should "the cold" bother you if YOU are not cold?
If you are cold, then this falls in the category of "What is a sentence in
English is often two sentences in Klingon." TKD page 65 6.2.5. You are
working with two concepts here. One is that you are cold. The second is that
it does not bother you. Cold is not a thing. It is a characteristic of a
thing. Coldness does not exist unless it is an attribute of something else.
So what is cold in your sentence?
Of course, your statement might be read as two sentences in the first
place. "It does not bother me. It is cold." In that order, it might not be
logically connected, but then perhaps the OVS sentence structure implies that
the logical connections between sentences would similarly be inverted by our
perspectives. Maybe that would make sense to a Klingon as two sentences.
I wouldn't count on it. I'd expect a reply "bIr nuq?" or "nuq bIr?"
depending on which way you think such questions should be cast. I think there
has been some inconsistency between TKD and CK on this.
-- charghwI'
