[2756] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jan 25 01:01:15 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: Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:58:31 EDT
In-Reply-To: <9401242206.AA14909@ bush.cs.tamu.edu>; from "Will Martin" at Jan
24, 94 4:06 pm
batlh choja', Will Martin quv:
(How did that attribution get there? This is QumpIn 'avrIn's article.)
=>2nd - This is the topic of current controversy. Most people agree that
=>the wording in TKD primarily justifies {-ghach} only when there is some sort
=>of suffix after the root verb.
=Really? When did this sea change come about?
The most unwelcome article in HolQeD in recent times, is how I would
have described it; Glen Prochel, latest issue. If you read the wording
of the appendix carefully, it shows that -ghach was really envisaged
only for compounds like -laHghach and -Ha'ghach, and not at all for
-taHghach; the wording also strongly implies that bare -ghach is
ungrammatical.
People should make the effort, incidentally, to distinguish between
-taHghach (ongoing action), and -pu'ghach (completed action). "Theft"
is the latter, as opposed to "stealing" (um... yes?), so nIHpu'ghach.
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
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
