[2783] in tlhIngan-Hol
The Screwed-Up Nominalizer
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jan 25 21:59:04 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: Tue, 25 Jan 94 03:08:14 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>
Since the article in HolQeD concerning nominalized verbs, it seems almost
every verb with {-ghach} also tacks on either {-taH} or other suffix that is
often totally unnecessary. What annoys me is when I see something along the
lines of {quvHa'taHghach}. The {-taH} is absolutely not needed to keep within
the bounds of grammaticality. But misinterpretation of the article on the
part of many on this list seems to imply that {-taH} must go with {-ghach}.
The one and only reason one should ever do this is to avoid nominalizing a
verb without any verb suffixes.
I don't like using the {-taHghach} construction at all, but I suppose it is
the conservative thing to do, for now, unless we already have info concerning
a particular verb's nominalized status. E.g., we know {teH} becomes {vIt} in
nominal form.
Okrand has never used {-ghach}, except in its explanation in TKD with
{naDHa'ghach}. Altho, that may be due to the fact that he doesn't use Hol
nearly as much as we do. I myself would like to see more Okrandian Hol,
because it's as close to the native as we get right now (at least for another
300 years or so).
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
