[87825] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: suffixes -lu'wI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Thu Feb 11 21:21:14 2010
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:19:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <4B74A942.8090103@trimboli.name>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--- On Thu, 2/11/10, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 2/11/2010 2:41 PM, Terrence
> Donnelly wrote:
> > I've kind of always tended to think that Andre's idea
> wasn't totally
> > impossible. How about another type of nominalization,
> with {-ghach},
> > eg. {leghlu'ghach} 'the act of being seen' (there's no
> exact English
> > equivalent, but so what?).
>
> When I see {leghlu'ghach}, I think "the act of one's
> seeing." A noun
> meaning the act of someone unspecified seeing. I don't know
> if the word
> would be meaningful to Klingons, though.
>
> Again, the issue here isn't the Klingon, it's the tendency
> to think in
> English passive voice when you're looking at the word. If
> you must
> translate to think about the meaning, translate into the
> active voice
> and try to work with that. If there's a difference when you
> do that,
> you're working from translation, not from the original.
>
Point taken. It was just a thought.
-- ter'eS
