[2807] in tlhIngan-Hol
The Screwed-Up Nominalizer
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Jan 26 12:27:49 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 12:22:36 -0500
In-Reply-To: dls9@aol.com's message of Tue, 25 Jan 94 03:08:14 EST <9401250308.
tn58308@aol.com>
>From: dls9@aol.com
>Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 03:08:14 EST
>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.
There are some other funky ones I've been noticing; one I noticed last
night and meant to send out today (thanks for giving me a good lead-in):
{ghoq} is to spy, the verb. {ghoqwI'} is a spy, the noun. "Espionage",
though, is {lInDab}. Ain't that fun? There are better ones out there.
One major part of all this that has been glossed over all this time (and it
surprises me that it has), is that we don't really have a good treatment of
what the nominalizer, be it "-ghach" or nothing, really means? We know
that "X-wI'" means "that which X's". I see "X-ghach" used for "that which
is X'ed" as well as "the act of X-ing", sometimes consistently, sometimes
not. Someone's gonna have to treat this question more thoroughly. Not me,
at least not now.
>Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
~mark, after having spoken to a reporter for his company newspaper about
the KBTP. Another thingy for the archives I'll have to send in (along with
the article I should be getting from the Baltimore Jewish News...)
