[tlhIngan Hol] KLBC - How to say "I like to do/doing something"

[SuStel]

The reason people suggest avoiding *-ghach* is to avoid the trap that 
you just fell into: adding a suffix (usually *-taH*) just because you're 
supposed to, but not really meaning that suffix.

*vuttaHghach* doesn't mean /cooking,/ it means /an ongoing act of 
cooking,/ or /continuous cooking./ That's not what you mean when you 
want to say /I like to cook./ What you'd want to say is **vutghach 
vIparHa',* but you can't say that.

Make no mistake: adding *-ghach* to a bare verb is /wrong,/ even though 
Okrand simply called it "marked." Okrand tells us in /HolQeD 3:3/ 
<http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1994-09-holqed-03-3-a.txt&q=marked> 
that saying **belghach* is like saying /*pleasureness./ We all 
understand it, but you don't say it. Klingons might not take it as badly 
as we would take /*pleasureness,/ but it's still not right.

The idea behind *-ghach* is this. Imagine you've got a verb like *bel,* 
and you've got a magic nominalizer button that, when pressed, turns the 
verb *bel* into the noun *bel.* Imagine this button works on any verb, 
but for the moment forget about verbs that don't have known noun 
counterparts (like *tlhutlh*). Stick a suffix on the verb, and press the 
button. When we put, say, *-taH* onto *bel* to get *beltaH* /be 
continuously pleased/ and then press the button, nothing happens. The 
presence of the suffix blocks our nominalization button. So Okrand comes 
along and gives us a magic suffix, *-ghach,* which when stuck on the end 
counteracts the presence of the blocking suffix and lets the nominalizer 
button work again. We add the suffix and push the button and ZAP! we get 
*beltaHghach*/ongoing pleasure./

The point of *-ghach* is to hide the verb's other suffixes from the 
nominalization process, so you can turn the suffixed verb into a noun again.

Now, the funny thing is, this process works to counteract suffixes and 
nominalize verbs that don't actually have noun counterparts! So while I 
can't use *tlhutlh* to mean /a drink,/ I CAN say 
*tlhutlhtaHghach*/ongoing drinking./

So people find themselves wanting to use *-ghach* on verbs that don't 
have noun counterparts, but they're not actually interested in 
counteracting suffixes; they just want a noun form of the verb. But, the 
rules say, you can't really use *-ghach* without a suffix. So they go 
and pick the one that least changes the meaning of the verb (usually 
*-taH*) just so they can get access to *-ghach,* even though they're not 
using it for its real purpose.

/*TL;DR: WHENEVER YOU FEEL AN URGE TO USE -ghach ON A BARE VERB, DON'T 
USE -ghach AT ALL. */Find some other way to say what you want to say, 
like sentences-as-objects.

And no, don't put prefixes on verbs with *-ghach.* We don't think you're 
supposed to do that.


On 2/13/2017 4:05 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion!
>
> I was a bit hesitant about -ghach because I remember a discussion 
> about it being a bit tricky to use for a beginner, or possibly "bad 
> Klingon".
>
> But, I guess then if it's ok to use it it could be:
>
> vuttaHghach vIparHa'
>
> (by the way, I don't need to use any prefix in a nominalized verb, right?)
>
> Thanks again!
>
> ~mughwI'
>
>
>
> 2017-02-12 23:08 GMT+01:00 MorphemeAddict <lytlesw at gmail.com 
> <mailto:lytlesw at gmail.com>>:
>
>     How about using a noun derived from a verb (by adding -ghach,
>     e.g.) as the object? It involves deciding which other suffix(es)
>     to use so that it doesn't sound odd.
>
>     lay'tel SIvten
>
>     On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de
>     <mailto:levinius at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>         Okay, since others have broken the KLBC-barrier already, and
>         our current BG may be at shore leave, I'll answer this:
>
>         Am 09.02.2017 um 13:31 schrieb Aurélie Demonchaux:
>
>             We have some examples of <par> and <parHa'> being used
>             with nouns or
>             pronouns but I can't find any canon source where they
>             apply to verbs.
>
>             Do you use {'e'} or nothing in those cases?
>
>
>         I will not go into alternatives like {tIv} "enjoy", but simple
>         answer
>         the question grammatically:
>
>         The verb {neH} is the only exception for omitting {'e'}. This
>         means that it is correct to say
>
>         {jIvut 'e' vIparHa'} "I like that I cook."
>
>         Yes, indeed you may think that this literally means "I do like
>         the fact that I am cooking at this moment", but there is no
>         "special" construction to express the common feeling of "I
>         like surfing in general". It's the English that's strange, not
>         the Klingon.
>


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170213/58fce379/attachment.htm>