[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: moHaq mojaq DuHmey

[John R. Harness]

Literally my wildest dreams have just come true.

Let the {-ghach}ing commence. You cannot stop me.


------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:35:25 -0500
> From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0 at gmail.com>
> To: "tlhingan-hol at kli.org" <tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: moHaq mojaq DuHmey
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAG84SOvFCHGd4b59hFpUYOUdaJNS9Ae_FirKy4ADCDZZ4XHxHw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
Snip


>
>
> >From an old issue of HolQeD:
>
> HQ: Let's carry this to the next extreme. Can you have prefixes on words
>     that use {-ghach}?
>
> MO: My initial reaction is that this needs more study. That is, just as
>     bare stem + {-ghach} is okay, but weird, prefix + verb (with or
>     without a suffix) + {-ghach} is even weirder. But not unheard of, and
>     the semantic feel, say with {legh}, would be something like <*I-/you-
>     seeing>, or a <sighting of you by me> as a single concept. I suppose
> you
>     could say that, and people would understand it, but it's weird. An I-
>     seeing-you happened. I can imagine someone saying that in English,
>     and you'd look up and say "huh?" but know exactly what was
>     meant. It's following the rules, but it's following them into a place
>     they don't normally go.
>
> http://klingonska.org/canon/1994-09-holqed-03-3-a.txt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151208/c3be8c73/attachment.html>