[89406] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: 'abghachlI' yIngu'!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Fri Sep 2 21:52:04 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 11:41:26 +1000
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP307DE726319F23C0B8D8E27D2180@phx.gbl>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In addition to Qov's comments on the grammar of {'abghachwI'}, I'll just point
out that {-ghach} isn't often used on a verb with no other suffix, as noted in
HolQeD 3:3:
HQ: "So, <can> we use the suffix {-ghach} on a naked stem?"
MO: "The general answer to that is "no." Now having said that, can you do it?
Can you say {belghach}, or {nobghach} or anything like that? Yeah you can, but,
it has a feeling in Klingon kind of like the English word <*pleasureness> or
something like <*collapsation> - it follows the rules, it's a <-tion>, an
activity and all, but it doesn't happen to work, however, if you said it would
you be understood? Yes, but it's weird." (HolQeD 3.3, "Interview: Okrand on
{-ghach}")
Ordinarily I'd simply ask, 'uj 'ar Da'ab? Alternately, either:
(a) 'uj Da'abbogh tItogh!
(b) 'uj Da'abbogh tIper!
jIH'e', vagh vI' cha' chorgh 'uj vI'ab jIH.
QeS 'utlh
