[86528] 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 19:30:20 2009
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:28:13 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <8246C65852C84A2F8BEE8C0CDDD9BD6F@HPBrownPC>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
qe'San (Jon Brown) wrote:
> ----- 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..
I don't think "his drinking" is a nominalization of "he drinks." "His
drinking" is a nominalization of "drink," which is then modified by the
masculine, third-person, singular, possessive pronoun. You might call
"his drinking" a noun-phrase counterpart of "he drinks," but it's not a
direct nominalization of the verbal phrase.
> Sule'choHmeH yantaHghachDaj bobejnIS. ghIq boqeqlI'chu'
> in order for you to become exceptional you need to watch his sword
> manipulation then train perfectly
Your sentence is correct, but you don't need -ghach for this.
Sule'choHmeH yantaH 'e' bobejnIS; ghIq peqeqnISchu'lI'.
(I think you meant to have another -nIS on the second sentence.)
> 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.
We have no rule against it, but again {'e'} makes this easier:
Sule'choHmeH yanchu'taH 'e' bobejnIS...
There is no noun-suffix equivalent of -chu', so the only qualification
you could have would be a verbal adjective or relative clause.
> 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?
{qeq} does not imply "ongoing" or "ongoing toward a known stopping
point." Leaving the -lI' off would not be wrong, but including it makes
the sentence that much more specific in meaning.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
