[89411] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: 'abghachlI' yIngu'!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gaerfindel)
Sat Sep 3 07:32:48 2011
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 07:25:33 -0400
From: Gaerfindel <gaerfindel@hotmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <BAY166-W122313018DA0E9DFC87671AA1B0@phx.gbl>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On 9/2/2011 9:41 PM, Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh wrote:
> 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}")
vIqawchu'taH.
> 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.
The <<vI'>> is a decimal point, qar'a'? I think I missed that class.
~quljIb
