tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 24 04:51:20 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: typical constructs



>Hi,

nuqneH

>I'm a student of computer science and computational linguistics from
>Koblenz, Germany. I'm interested in artificial languages on the whole
>(have you ever tried creating on eof you own?).

toH - Guten Tag. Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch. Aber meine Deutsch ist
unbedingt nicht so gut, wie Sie wahrscheinlich lesen koennen. Ich habe schon
ja meine eigene Sprach zumachen versucht, aber ich finde, dass ein solches
Projekt so viel Zeit dauern wuerde.

>I am taking a course in the Klingon language at our university this
>semester and will soon have to talk about the semantics of the Klingon
>language. I've found out some interesting things, but there is one
>point missing: I'd like to know what are typical language constucts in
>Klingon.

A Klingon course at a university? I've heard about such things here in the
States, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the deal with learning
Klingon (or any language for that matter) is taken much more seriously there
in Europe.

>I've read the book by Marc Okrand: He describes the basic sentencs
>structure, but I'd like to know what you do if you want to express
>complex thoughts in Klingon.
>When you learn to talk and think in a language, you learn to
>instinctively express your thoughts in a way typical of the language,
>which is different from the way you'd say the same thing in another
>language. I'm really not that experienced in talking Klingon, so I'd
>appreciate your help.

>Thanx,
> Katrin

Like ~mark said, it's tough to explain. Klingon does have what you might call
an imesho relatively restricting grammar, but I believe that's mainly a
matter of Okrand not giving us as much info as maybe he ought to.

Maybe a good rambling while give you some of the info you're looking for.

Of course, Klingon is generally object-first, but not always. It's more
accurate to say it is subject-last. Normally a sentence starts with an adverb
or syntactic marker (noun with a type 5 suffix). If neither of those is
present, the object comes first. Then the verb, then the subject. Actually,
when the subject or object are pronouns, they are mostly left out, as the
verbal prefix indicates the person and number of the subject and object.

Klingon differs from many Indo-European languages in several respects. First,
it has no form of the copula, no way to say "be". There are no adjectives,
only stative verbs. This is the way things are in languages like Swahili and
Chinese. Klingon pronouns are usd as verbs when they are to mean "It is, I
am, you are, etc." as they are in Russian or Hebrew. The third person
pronouns can even be used to equivocate two nouns. The only catch is that the
noun following the pronominal verb has to be topicalized. This is what
Japanese does, except that the topic goes first.

Klingon does not use many of the commonest words found in IE languages.
"This" and "that" have to be rendered {Dochvam} and {Dochvetlh} respectively.
Such cumbersome constructions are often frowned on in best Klingon usage,
which tends toward brevity and succinctness. Klingon uses other words which
are not commonly used in IE languages. {wanI'} "event", {ghu'} "situation",
{Dotlh} "status", {qaS} "happen, occur", {lo'} "use", are among the very
commonest Klingon words.

Klingon stylistics is something that we on this list like to debate. The
simple truth is, none of us are right. We can only accept other styles, work
with our own, and hope that maybe in due time, there will be one true Klingon
Sprachegefuel.

Complex sentences consist of a normal sentence along with another clause
whose verb is marked by one of the particular set of type 9 verb suffixes
used to form dependent clauses. Normally it seems (to me at least) that
putting the dependent clause first makes for a clearer sentence. This is not
what some people believe. The Sonnet that you read was probably one
translated by NickNicholas. His style is frequently causing trouble to some.
One thing that marks his personal style is his use of multiple dependent
clauses in one sentence. An opposing style, as far as placement of clauses is
concerned, is the style of charghwI', who likes to place his dependent
clauses in front of the main one. This and other firmly held marks of style
make his style one of the most rigid and clear. 
Somewhere in between these lies the norm.

As for my own style, well, a fish can't see the water it swims in. Someone
other than me is best qualified to judge that. My own biggest complaints
about much of the Klingon I see here is 1) it's too Englishcentric or
Anglicized, and 2) most people don't seem to realize is that we're not
telepathic. Klingon that looks complicated and unruly to the writer will look
the same way to reader. Clear and concise writing comes from constantly
wondering to yourself, is this construction understandable? If I were the
reader, would this make sense to me? Some people try to get away with
stretching meanings just enough to get just the right touch, but it almost
always costs them the clarity of the sentence.

Anyhow, I'm done complaining. So, Katrin, Willkommen. Hoffentlich bleiben Sie
mit diesem [mailing-list] und werden einen guten Klingonist. (Weil mein
Deutsch riecht, soll ich auf Englisch lieber schreiben).

Participating on this list is a sure-fire way to get a good handle on many of
the most useful and natural 'typical constructs' of Klingon.

veqlargh jeylu'meH DubnIS jeywI'Hey retlhDajDaq QamtaHvIS Qapla'


Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos



Back to archive top level