tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 08 12:03:25 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: imperative + -jaj

Steven Boozer ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

QeS lagh wrote:

>ghItlhpu' Voragh:
>
> >This suffix is used to express a desire or wish on the part of the speaker
> >that something take place in the future. When it is used, there is never
> >a Type 7 aspect suffix.

Actually, Marc Okrand wrote this in TKD (pp. 175f).

>mu'tlheghvam'e' tlhoy {not} HoSghaj. {qIb lengwI' tlhIngan Hol}Daq chutvam
>lobHa'bogh mu'tlhegh chovnatlh'e' tu'lu'.  pab lobbe'law', 'ach ghu'mo'
>potlh:
>
>   wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran
>   May Gowron continue to lead the empire (KGT p.25-26)

There's an exception to every descriptive rule, particularly those having 
to do with "natural" languages (as Klingon purports to be).  You'll have 
fewer headaches if you mentally insert the words "almost" or "in the vast 
majority of cases" before every instance of "always" or "never" in TKD.

Alternative 1)  Consider that "Federation linguist" Okrand is describing 
one particular flavor of the standard modern language - i.e. that of the 
hypothetical educated speaker in the capital (a common fiction amongst 
writers of foreign language primers).  No native speaker talks exactly like 
the textbook, as anyone who's ever learned a language academically can 
attest when they finally travel and encounter native speakers in the flesh 
or on their home soil.

Alternative 2)  Consider these "mistakes" by Okrand in the canon as 
examples of sub-standard or non-educated speech.  Examples in English might 
be the misuse of the subjunctive, double negatives or non-standard forms 
like "ain't".

Alternative 3)  This could be an example of {mu'mey ru'}, an intentional 
grammatical error used for rhetorical effect.  E.g.:

   Sometimes words or phrases are coined for a specific occasion,
   intentionally violating grammatical rules in order to have an
   impact. Usually these are never heard again, though some gain
   currency and might as well be classified as slang. Klingon
   grammarians call such forms {mu'mey ru'} ("temporary words").
   Sometimes, {mu'mey ru'} fill a void--that is, give voice to an
   idea for which there is no standard (or even slang) expression;
   sometimes, like slang, they are just more emphatic ways of expres-
   sing an idea. A common way to create these constructions is to
   bend the grammatical rules somewhat, violating the norm in a way
   that is so obvious that there is no question that it is being
   done intentionally. To do this is expressed in Klingon as {pabHa'}
   ("misfollow [the rules], follow [the rules] wrongly").  [KGT 176]

   Ironically, members of the higher social classes are more likely
   than their lower-class counterparts to violate the normal rule
   involving possessives ("my," "your," "his/her," etc.). These
   special constructions are formed intentionally, however, so
   calling them "errors" would not be accurate. As with {-neS},
   this grammatical twist is not encountered very frequently, so
   when it is used, it carries a certain amount of force.  [KGT 39]

   It is not known with certainty why this construction is found
   predominantly among the higher classes, though it is probably
   because, among the educated elite, an intentional misuse of the
   language would be interpreted as a rhetorical device--even as a
   bit of poetry--rather than as simply careless speech. Since a
   visitor's place in the social scheme of things is not clear,
   it would be best to not use the construction at all but at the
   same time to refrain from expressing disapproval if someone else
   uses it. [KGT 40]

   A final type of intentional ungrammaticality may occur as a result
   of an attempt to circumvent a grammatical rule.  [KGT 180]

   No one accepts such constructions as grammatical; their inappro-
   priateness, the way they grate on the Klingon ear, is exactly what
   gives them elocutionary clout. [KGT 181]

There's a whole section, in fact, on "Intentional Ungrammaticality" in KGT 
(pp. 176-181).

In short, don't worry about a single anomalous "error" by 
Maltz/Okrand.  They are normal in any language, particularly as they are 
almost always (!) understood by every native speaker.  The problem is ours 
of course, not theirs, as we're not native speakers.



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level