<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/2/2018 11:21 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtwW7uGuncDd9PTkGVySNVG5zOZ3JUD6hdMZL4x2+vO2g@mail.gmail.com">So
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that objectless {rang} is
out-and-out wrong,</blockquote>
<p>I specifically said it's not out-and-out wrong, though I didn't
use that phrase. It's still wrong, in the sense that if you said
it to someone, they'd stop and wonder what the heck you're talking
about... oh, okay, I get it, that's a funny word you just used
there.<br>
</p>
<p>It's weird in the same sense that a verb + <b>-ghach</b> with no
intervening suffix is weird. It's wrong, but it's not, strictly
speaking, illegal. In English <i>eatation</i> is a perfectly
well-formed word created from <i>eat + -ation,</i><i> </i>meaning
<i>the process of eating.</i> But it's not a real word. It's
wrong, as wrong as <b>Sopghach</b> is. But if you wanted to make
a point and the combination of <b>Sop</b> and <b>-taH</b> (or <i>eat</i>
and <i>-ation</i>) made that point perfectly, in the right
settings you'd go ahead and say it anyway.</p>
<p>Well, my understanding is that <b>rang</b> without an object is
wrong, in the sense that while it doesn't actually break any
rules, it's just not used that way. If you had a particular point
to make and an objectless <b>rang</b> made that point perfectly,
in the right settings you'd just go ahead and say it anyway, but
that doesn't make it any less wrong, or "weird."<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>