[87531] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: {-ghach} revisited (yet again!)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Tue Dec 15 17:01:45 2009
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A601138ACF2576@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:58:36 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I suppose I meant more that, based on Okrand's description, we ought
to *expect* words with <-ghach> to be ubiquitous in Klingon speech,
not necessarily that they were.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:26, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> naHQun:
>>> <-ghach> is a whole different story all together.
>>> Simple rule: Don't use it unless you know what you're doing.
>>> [snip]
>>> For most of us, this means don't use -ghach except for words found in
>>> the dictionary, until you have a really good feel for it.
>
> Chris:
>>It's funny that you say that, because the sense I got from that
>>interview (?) with Okrand is that -ghach is ubiquitous and ends up on
>>all kinds of words. Not some (e.g., bare stems), but a whole lot. I
>>hardly think saying "don't use it unless you know what you are doing"
>>is the message that Okrand is conveying there...
>
> Whoa... hardly "ubiquitous"!
>
> Except for the TKD section on {-ghach} (TKD 4.2.9 IIRC?) and an interview about using {-ghach} in HolQeD (HQ 3.3) - where you would expect to find isolated examples, properly and improperly formed - Okrand actually uses it in only ONE sentence (i.e. {quvHa'ghach} "dishonor"):
>
> 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
>
> Although theoretically productive, {-ghach}'ed nouns are almost never used in "authentic" texts. Perhaps such nouns strike the average Klingon warrior as recondite, sesquipedalian or even cacophonous, which would explain its eschewal. <g>
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Canon Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
>
>
