[86505] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun phrase
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Mon Sep 14 12:43:21 2009
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A6EE94F1DA94@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> I.e. {lo'laHghach}, {lo'laHbe'ghach}, {naDHa'ghach} and
> {naDqa'ghach} (all from TKD). In TKW he used
> {quvHa'ghach} "dishonor" in our sole example of a
> "{-ghach}ed noun" in a sentence:
>
> qaStaHvIS wej puq poHmey vav puqloDpu' puqloDpu'chaj
> je quvHa'moH
> vav quvHa'ghach
> The dishonor of the father dishonors his sons and
> their sons for
> three generations. TKW
>
> Note that all five of these have another suffix between the
> verb and {-ghach}.
>
What's interesting about these is that these are different types of suffixes. From MO's description, it sounded like you couldn't use a naked verb plus {-ghach} because some sort of time or state was implied by {-ghach} that the naked verb didn't convey, so one had to use one of the "aspectual" suffixes, such as {-taH} or {-qa'}. But the only aspectual suffix in the above group is {-qa'}, and the others are more like modal suffixes. So maybe the need for an intervening suffix is more of a formal requirement than something inherent in the meaning of {-ghach}.
-- ter'eS
