[87125] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Question about Klingon books (e.g., Gilgamesh et al.)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Wed Nov 25 14:17:40 2009
In-Reply-To: <f1d476f10911250718o7de20c5dsc966cc27781aa32b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:15:41 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 07:18, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> We lack any grammatical tools to
> nominalize a verb's object -- which I suppose is reasonable,
> considering that many verbs never have objects and no verbs *must*
> have objects.
I don't think this is true, as you can use a relative clause for some of this:
'oH leghbe'lu'bogh
"It that is not seen (by anyone :)"
I'm not sure about the "act" interpretation of -ghach; I'll have to go
reread that interview with Okrand, but the sense I got from that was
that -ghach can mean a whole giant pile of stuff, not just the act of
doing something (e.g., it can mean the -ness or quality of something,
or the outcome of something, etc.)
