[86527] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun phrase
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qe'San \(Jon Brown\))
Wed Sep 16 19:04:57 2009
From: "qe'San \(Jon Brown\)" <qeSan@btinternet.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:02:09 +0100
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Trimboli" <david@trimboli.name>
>
> 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.
>
Having asked the question about bItlhutlhghach and whether it needed -taH I
should say that it seemed a strange concept but because I was trying to
understand what was meant by nominalize and seeing the English definition
refer to "His Drinking" as a nominalization of "He drinks" I had to ask if
that applied to Klingon..
Reading all the canon and interviews as well as everyone's personal opinions
I find I agree (for what that's worth) that Yes the -taH is required Marc
Okrand even used tlhutlhtaH in the interview. It's also there in a sense
in the English with the -ing although I know that's not directly the same.
Back to the prefix I can see that's this can easily taken care of by the
possessive suffixes anyway giving you something that is not weird and ticks
all the boxes I was looking at. So should I want to refer to "His Drinking"
I will use {tlhutlhtaHDaj}
Or to take a different example an instructor might say to his students of a
master swordsman.
Sule'choHmeH yantaHghachDaj bobejnIS. ghIq boqeqlI'chu'
in order for you to become exceptional you need to watch his sword
manipulation then train perfectly
Assuming that I got that right I suppose I could even say
Sule'choHmeH yanchu'taHghachDaj bobejnIS. ghIq boqeqlI'chu'
in order for you to become exceptional you need to watch his perfect sword
manipulation then train perfectly
Or can I add -chu'? It seems right to me to have verb qualification on the
pre-nominalized verb rather than a qualification on the noun.
On another subject there, am I right to use -lI' on boqeqlI'chu' or does qeq
imply an ongoing aspect by it's very meaning?
Thanks for all the help.
qe'San
