tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 25 20:25:03 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

[tlhIngan-Hol] Re: Language differences

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "Se'noj le'umaS" <[email protected]>

> If one learns a language from the outside, they stick very closely to the
> rules. Look at we Klingonists, we would never dream of breaking the rules
> that Maltz has explained to us. But, many observers have noted that most
> Klingons are very liberal with the rules, often breaking them entirely for
> things such as speed and poetic license. And English speakers, also, break
> their own rules. One look at retarded 4-year-old AOL language will show a
> prime example, OMG LOL TRU!!! And l337, also.

More important is the fact that while we know the basic rules, the specifics
are mostly unknown.  We learn a few things once in a while, but it must
barely scratch the surface.

For instance, KGT taught us that when imperatives are used with verbs of
quality, non-idiomatic speech requires that they take the {-'egh} and the
{-moH} suffixes.  There was no way to know this until Okrand told us; it was
an unknown rule of usage.

By "rules," I mean the descriptive rules of the language Klingons use, not a
prescriptive set of laws to obey.  If the descriptive rules say that {lu-}
may be left off of {tu'lu'} "just because," then Klingons who leave off the
{lu-} are not breaking any rules; they're speaking normally.

Think of it this way: TKD doesn't tell you how to speak Klingon; it tells
you how Klingon is spoken.

This point is often not understood, even though it is mentioned by Okrand in
the two-paragraph section 2 of TKD: "What follows is only a sketch of
outline of Klingon grammar.  Although a good many of the fine points are not
covered, the sketch will allow the student of Klingon to figure out what a
Klingon is saying and to respond in an intelligible, though somewhat
brutish, manner."

In other words, we don't know the fine points, so the Klingon we know isn't
"right."  It's close, but not exactly what Klingons speak.

Fortunately, Okrand also says, "Most Klingons will never know the
difference."  Presumably, they're not usually interested in how eloquent you
are, just how effectively you can communicate your idea.

Remember the difference between descriptive and prescriptive rules.  Klingon
is given to us in a descriptive way.

> It has been noted in congruent literature between English and Klingon,
also.
> Shakespeare, one of the 'greatest' writers of history for both culture,
is,
> at least in English, a rather shameless hack. No-one in Shakespeare's time
> said "E'en so" in place of "Even so" or "Yes", though he uses it
frequently,
> espescially in Hamlet, Son of the Emperor of Kronos. or perhaps this is
just
> a bad attempt by the mIgh yuQjIjQa' to make their forgeries more
> 'authentic'. We will never know.

Shakespeare was also busy trying to write for a specialized art form, and to
meet the needs of the meter he was writing in.  Sometimes you have to add
syllables, sometimes you have to remove them.  He was also interested in
distinguishing his characters even while they had to meet these needs: if
they all speak the same way, they're boring.  (I always felt that Isaac
Asimov had this problem: all of his characters, even the goons and brutes,
speak logically and intelligently.)  Part of Shakespeare's brillance was
that he could do this while keeping to the necessary forms, and still
working in amazing puns, double-entrendres, and stinging commentary, not to
mention engaging plots.

We're lucky that our Shakespearean translators for the KSRP have their own
brilliance . . . .

It is true, however, that Shakespeare didn't mind breaking the rules.  He is
probably the most famous word-coiner of all.

SuStel
Stardate 4153.8

Back to archive top level