tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 10 08:09:43 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

KLBC: a lesson



For Beginners:

Okay, as Beginners' Grammarian, I'm supposed to try to TEACH
this language and other than responding to others' posts, I
haven't been very active lately, so, here goes:

WORD ORDER IN KLINGON SENTENCES:

The basic structure of a typical Klingon sentence is spelled
out in TKD section 6. Here's my attempt at a guided tour.

A single verb with its appropriate prefix is a complete
sentence. As an example, {jIyaj} is a complete sentence. Also
note that exclammatory words like {majQa'}, {toH} and {Qu'vatlh}
also form complete sentences, and as such, do not really fit
inside another sentence most of the time.

The prefix on the verb must always indicate the person (1st
person = me, 2nd person = you, or 3rd person = somebody else)
and number (just one = singular, more = plural) of the subject
(the one doing the action of the verb), and if there is an
object of the verb (the one the action of the verb is being
done to), then that must also be indicated by the prefix.

One point of confusion for beginners is that Klingon does not
seem to always distinguish between direct objects and indirect
objects. For those not currently studying grammar in any
language, in the sentence, "I give the ball to you,", "I" is
the subject, "give" is the verb, "ball" is the direct object
and "you" is the indirect object. You can recognize the
indirect object because of the preposition "to" in front of it.

But then, in English, we similarly confuse things by recasting
the same sentence as, "I give you the ball". Now, there is no
preposition. We just know from convention by the position of
the nouns "you" and "ball" that the ball is the thing we are
giving and "you" is the indirect object. We are not giving
"you". We are giving TO "you".

This is why when you read people on this list saying,
{qajalth}, you should know that they mean "I'm talking to you,"
instead of "I speak you." Also, recognize that the real English
equivalent would be, "Hey! I'm talking to YOU!" and implies a
friendly shove to get your attention.

So, in Klingon, we can offer the clear version of the sentence
as {SoHvaD moQ vInob.} Literally, this means, "For your
benefit, I give the ball," or more smoothly, "I give the ball
for you," and you can understand that we would more
idiomatically call it "to you" instead of "for you".

We could state the same thing with {SoHDaq} to more literally
mean "to you", but you should understand that in Klingon, this
really means "to the space that you occupy", so while it would
work fine to convey that you are moving the ball towards the
person, it slightly less conveys the sense that you are giving
the ball to the person SO THEY CAN HAVE IT. [This is only my
opinion, but] it is more like saying, "I give the ball toward
you."

But I digress...

In Klingon, you could also say, {moQ qanob}. Notice that this
seems to be a mistake. The prefix {qa-} means that the suject
is "I" and the object is "you". Meanwhile, the explicit noun
"ball" is in the position that belongs to the object of the
verb.

Well, you can do that in Klingon and the result is just as
sensible as "I give you the ball," is in English. It usually
works out best that the prefix indicates the subject and
indirect object while the explicit noun indicates the direct
object.

Hmmm. I kinda already slid into how to use nouns in Klingon.
Even beginners usually already picked up that the typical
Klingon sentence puts the object before the verb, then follows
the verb with the subject. OBJECT - VERB - SUBJECT. Note that
having a noun as the object or subject is optional. While the
verb always needs to be there, if the prefix makes it clear
enough who or what the subject and object are, you don't need
nouns.

A common error for beginners is to think that if you have a
noun as an explicit object, then you don't need to indicate its
person and number in the prefix. This mistake looks like this:

*moQ jIghaj.*

Not good. You need to make the prefix match the object:

moQ vIghaj.

Brain full yet? Going to sleep on me? Pull out that pain stick!
Smack yourself! PAY ATTENTION! CONCENTRATE!

Okay, now for something a little new:

What is Okrand telling us when TKD 6.1 says, "Any noun in the
sentence indicating something other than subject or object
comes first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in
a Type 5 noun suffix (section 3.3.5)."? As a clue, let's look
at Type 5 noun suffixes:

-Daq = locative
-vo' = from
-vaD = for 
-'e' = topic
-mo' = due to

We pretty much covered {-vaD} for indirect object. Such a
sentence is structured to answer questions in the following
sequence:

[For whom or what is this happening?] [To whom or what is this
happening?] [What is happening] [Who is causing the action to
happen?]

{-Daq} is appended to a noun in order to make it answer the
question [Where is the action happening?]

{-vo'} similarly makes a noun answer the question [From whence
does the action happen?]

{-mo'} makes a noun answer the question [Why is the action
happening?]

The {-'e'} suffix does not really get a good enough description
here or in canon for us to fully understand how it is used on a
noun before the object of the verb. Nick (on this list) has
suggested a very sensible use of it in this way, though canon
use of it tends to be on nouns that are in the subject or
object position. Note that the other Type 5 suffixes CANNOT be
applied to nouns in the subject or object positions, so {-'e'}
is already exceptional.

Okrand does not give us a specific heirarchy among the
questions where, from where, for whom and why. He just states
that when these questions are being answered in a sentence by a
noun, that noun comes BEFORE the noun that answers the question
[To whom or what is the action happening?].

Basically, you are setting up the context of the action before
you point to the being that is going to "get it", then describe
what is going to be done to this hapless victim, and finally,
you give credit to the mover and shaker that is making things
happen. Can you see the cultural personality laid out by this
grammar?

So what OTHER nouns are used in this position that do not
necessarily have type 5 suffixes? Well, there are many nouns
that, by their nature, tend to similarly set a context for the
action. Time words are good examples. DaHjaj, wa'Hu' and wa'leS
all typically appear at the beginning of a sentence in order to
provide the time context that serves as tense for Klingon, so
add [When does the action happen] to the list of questions that
get answered before the direct object.

Realize that these time words CAN be used as subjects or
objects, though this is exceptional. Note the difference
between, "Today, I go to work," and "Today is good."

So what else goes at the beginning of a typical Klingon
sentence? Adverbials similarly set up the context in which the
action will occur, and they appear at the beginning of the
sentence. Again, we get no clear heirarchy as to where an
adverbial appears when there are also Type 5 suffixed nouns or
time related nouns. We just know that all of these appear
before the object of the main verb. One presumes that it may be
a matter of style.

Note that in complex sentences (those with more than one verb),
these context setting nouns and adverbs most clearly function
when they preceed the specific verb to which they are applied.

COMPLEX SENTENCES:

A complex sentence has more than one verb in it. The simplest
example is to simply combine two sentences with a conjunction
between them. "I kill you and you die." It works pretty much
like you'd expect.

Type 9 verb suffixes generally tend to make one verb depend
upon the existence of a second verb to make the sentence whole.
As an example in English, "If I run" is not a complete
sentence, even though "run" is a perfectly fine verb that can
usually serve as a main verb for a complete sentence. By adding
"if", we made "run" need another verb. Similarly, {-chugh} is a
Type 9 suffix that does the same thing to a verb.

Such dependent verbs usually can appear either before or after
the main verb and its accompanying nouns and adverbials. This
is not true for the suffix {-meH}. Since this answers the
question [Why is the action happening?], it must preceed the
main verb, much like an adverbial or a Type 5 suffixed noun.
Again, you are setting the context for the main action.

Note that Okrand neglected to state the proper position of a
verb with the {-mo'} suffix, though I personnally suspect that
it is far more appropriate for it to PRECEED the main verb than
to follow it, for the same reason as {-meH} and the noun suffix
{-mo'}. It answers the question [Why is the action happening?]
and thereby sets the context for the main action.

In a similar way, I personally find it somewhat clearer to
place other dependent verbs before the main verb, especially if
the dependent clause serves to set the context for the main
verb, as is often the case with {-taHvIS}, {-DI'}, and {-pa'}
which answer the question [When does the main action happen?]

Still, Okrand explicitly allows for these dependent verbs to
either preceed OR follow the main verb, so it is perfectly fine
to place these verbs and their accompanying adverbials and
nouns AFTER the main verb. In particular, he offers examples
using {-DI'} and {-chugh} showing that they can preceed or
follow the main verb.

RELAX! I hope this helps tie things together for beginners. I'm
not really saying a lot that Okrand has not already said, but
perhaps just hearing it through different words or with topics
tied together in a different sequence, this can help.

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |


Back to archive top level