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

Aurélie Demonchaux demonchaux.aurelie at gmail.com
Tue Feb 14 06:19:27 PST 2017

Thanks for explaining SuStel - I see where the problem is now.

Yes I'll stick to sentence-as-objects instead in the future or just
rephrase in some other way.

2017-02-13 22:30 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:

> 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.
> -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>:
>> 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> 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.
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170214/cec031cc/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list