[2768] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jan 25 12:18:09 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: Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:11:41 EST
On Jan 24, 5:15pm, Will Martin wrote:
> Subject: Re: po puv bortaS! (translation)
>
> >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? For a long time on the
> list this never seemed to be the consensus. I have geenrally used
> -ghach when an explicit corresponding noun wasn't listed; I think of
> it as a general gerund marker.
>
> -QumpIn 'avrIn erich@bush.cs.tamu.edu
The "sea of change" was instigated by an article by Glen Proechel (sp?)
in the most recent HolQeD. His arguement has two parts. One says that TKD
page 176 suggests strongly that {-ghach} is to be used only with verbs with
suffixes. The key here, with my emphasis:
"... It is not known if all verbs can be used as nouns, but it is known
that verbs ENDING IN SUFFIXES ... CAN NEVER BE NOUNS. The Type 9 suffix
{-ghach} however, can be attached to SUCH VERBS in order to form nouns..."
It never says you can use {-ghach} with verbs without other suffixes.
The language sounds aimed at verbs with suffixes strongly enough that it is
probably the case that the only function of {ghach} is to allow verbs with
suffixes to be used as nouns.
This point was argued briefly here, though argue is a strong word, since
nobody that I remember said anything in defense of the use of {-ghach} on
bare verb stems except for something like, "Gee, this sure makes things
inconvenient." Nobody had anything from canon to contest it. Nobody had any
grammatical arguments against it. It just sort of got accepted, IMHO, and if
I'm wrong, I'd appreciate being set right. Your statement alone has not, as
yet, accomplished this feat.
Prochael's second point was that he thought the wording allowed him to
use any damned bare verb he chose as a noun whenever he wanted to. One person
wrote in that he also thought this was a good idea. Everybody else disagreed,
including our humble and hard-working grammarian, ~mark.
Again, these points can come up for review at any point, and I may well
be mistaken in interpreting the pulse of the group as a whole. It wouldn't be
the first time. Still, I felt safe to make the statement before and until I'm
corrected, I think it stands.
-- charghwI'
