[642] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: "-ghach" as gerund-forming particle?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Apr 22 02:12:38 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Admiral Doug Fields <fields@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 0:56:30 EDT
In-Reply-To: <9304220332.AA28832@ bush.cs.tamu.edu>; from "Erich Schneider" at
> I may not have caught all the debate about "-ghach" and noun to verb
> constructions, but would it be dangerous to assume that "-ghach" is
> a general gerund-forming particle? (Like verbs with "-ing" in English
> used as nouns.)
To date, I've used ghach twice to make the words reading and writing.
I formed them from the original verbs and the ghach ending. I could
not think of any other method of meaning these words.
For example, "laD" means to read, so I said "laDghach" for reading.
"laDwI'" I assumed would mean reader, which I did not mean. I
cannot see any other meaning of "read + nominalizer" than
reading.
As a general rule? I don't know...
Cheers,
Doug
