<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/9/2020 9:47 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e9d8f486-ac4c-dd02-c0c1-c4169b28e049@gmx.de">What I have
observed is that many newbies come with phrases based on
<br>
nouns like "My love for you is strong" and then we suggest them to
<br>
rephrase it like "I love you very much".
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Sure, this is a case where we have a verb <b>muSHa'</b><i> love</i>
and no corresponding noun, and so naturally one will turn to the
verb. And sometimes it's true that we have a verb with no
corresponding noun. I don't think this makes Klingon verb-centric;
it just means Klingon doesn't noun its verbs and verb its nouns as
often as English does. The balance of Klingon is different than
that of English.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e9d8f486-ac4c-dd02-c0c1-c4169b28e049@gmx.de">
And then I recently started to wonder why we do that. Is it really
the
<br>
case that there are more verb-centric expressions or constructions
than
<br>
nouns? Or did we really just make that up many years ago, when we
were
<br>
missing so many words?
</blockquote>
<p>I think missing words was part of it. I think fear of and
confusion about <b>-ghach</b> was another. I think the fact that
many English nouns get translated into Klingon verbs is
significant and should be noted for the student, but I don't think
that the entire character of the language should be named based on
just that.</p>
<p>It's really just an admonition to the student not to translate
word for word. Find out how Klingon wants to construct things and
expression your idea using those Klingon tools. Sometimes, what is
a noun in English is necessarily a verb in Klingon. But don't
overstate this.<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>