[86525] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Wed Sep 16 13:13:53 2009
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:11:02 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <SNT114-W36CC87407232D2447B3BD9F2E20@phx.gbl>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Agnieszka Solska wrote:
> jISIv:
>
>> Any ideas on whether it could be used together with {-ghach} to create nouns
>> expressing something like "the process or act of doing something" or "the state of
>> being something, e.g.:
>>
>> ?Doghlu'ghach - "foolishness, (the state of) being foolish"
>
> jang SuStel:
>
>> I think these are flat-out wrong, for the same reason you wouldn't say
>> *{bItlhutlhtaHghach}. {-lu'} has to do with the agent of the verb, but
>> the verb doesn't seem to be fully conjugated before {-ghach} is added to it.
>
> Thanks, SuStel, for your response, especially for pointing out that verbs with
> {-lu'} and verbs with prefixes have to do with the agent of the verb, and therefore
> might be subject to the same restrictions.
>
> However, based on what MO said in the interview on {-ghach} in HolQeD 3.3:10-13,
> I see no reason why {prefix-verb-suffix-ghach} forms (and possibly {verb-lu'-ghach}
> forms too) should be regarded as "flat-out wrong." After all, Okrand merely calls
> them "weird". This might be interpreted as understatement for "wrong" except
> that Okrand [HolQeD 3.3:13] actually says that they are not unheard of:
>
>> just as bare stem + {-ghach} is okay, but weird, prefix + verb (with or
>> without a suffix) + {-ghach} is even weirder. But not unheard of (…)
I think you misunderstand me. **{bIquvtaHghach} is just as wrong as
**{quvghach}: they're not real words. When I say "flat-out wrong," I
don't mean they can't be used; I just mean they're not valid words. This
is what Okrand means when he says they're "weird" or "marked." (Just
calling them "weird" without any reference to what "weird" means would
make these forms unusable in EVERY situation.)
The rules of English allow us to construct words like **badify and
**badification, but that doesn't mean they're REAL words. They're wrong.
This is exactly the same problem as that of **{bIquvtaHghach} and
**{quvghach}. The rules allow it, but it's wrong. You would UNDERSTAND
it if you heard it, but you'd recognize that it's wrong. You would only
use it in certain circumstances—and we don't really know anything about
the circumstances under which Klingons would find creating these "nonce
words" accpetable.
I think [verb + -lu' + -ghach] falls into the same category. The rules
allow it, but it's wrong, for the same reason that **{bIquvtaHghach} is
wrong. I also don't think that the formation carries any information
that [verb + -ghach] doesn't carry.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
