tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 10 08:06:18 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Gaps in known Klingon grammar?
>Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 09:15:41 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "A.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
>Mark Shoulson said:-
>> "nagh DungDaq" [= stone's region_above in = above the stone] using a *NOUN*
>> of position (Dung) and the normal locative suffix (-Daq). Maybe some *nouns*
>> for "area nearby" and so on would be handy.
>They would be handy. Remember that {-Daq} is also a separate noun for
>"location": from {nagh Daq} = "the stone's location" to {naghDaq} = "at the
>stone" is an easy step which several words likely followed as some unrecorded
>change in ancient Klingon (perhaps a general loss of final vowels) destroyed
>whatever previous way it had (e.g. a Latin-style locative case) to say "at X".
Possibly... but who's to say in which direction that step was taken? Maybe
the noun Daq was coined from the suffix. We *cannot* presume on guesed-at
history. Again; I'm *far* more likely to believe that Okrand will give us
a handful of *nouns* of location rather than more suffixes. Like I said,
look at other languages. Many have very few true prepositions and use
compound ones heavily. Even in English we use "in front of" and such.
>He said to me:-
>> I recall *I* used "orbit" as you mention in a post in response to your use
>> of {tlhej} as though it were a suffix, not in Klingon, but in English,
>> saying "The earth moves through space orbit the sun" as an example of how
>> you *can't* blithely invent prepositions from verbs and stay grammatical.
>For "I walk around the outside of the building" he suggested:-
>---- qach ---- - N:[building|structure]
>---- HurDaq ---- - N:outside NS5:locative
>---- gho ---- - N:circle
>---- rurbogh ---- - V:resemble VS9:which_rel
>---- HeDaq ---- - N:route_course NS5:locative
>---- vIyIt ---- - PP:I/[he|it|them] V:walk
No, I didn't. You have to pay better attention to the attributions. The
sentence you refer to was suggested not by me, but by "R.B Franklin"
<[email protected]>.
>(1) I suspect that the reason why Okrand lists {bav} = "orbit" as a verb and
>not also a noun is simply that he has never so far happened to need "orbit"
>as a noun; by analogy with a lot of other words which can be used as both nouns
>and verbs, there seems to be little risk in using {bav} as a noun = "a/the
>orbit". I.e. do we treat what Okrand quotes as the whole of (mostly the
>spaceman's variety of) Klingon? Or do we treat it as that subset of Klingon
>that he has needed so far in composing text for Star Trek etc? If the latter,
>then can we do what people writing in Tolkien's languages seen to do
>routinely, namely a sensible controlled amount of analogical extension to try
>to reconstruct some of the matter which is so far missing?
It depends. As Guido said: aere you planning to be understood, or are you
just writing for the sake of inventing your own language? We do not
consider ourselves to have the authority to coin new roots or usages.
Okrand has said that you *can't* tell which verbs have simple nouns and
which don't. He's said it repeatedly. Since he said so, it's probably a
good bet that it's so. That means that we can't cavalierly think "Well,
*this* one fits a pattern which I am told does not exist of verbs which can
be used as nouns, so I'll use it as a noun." That's what Glen Proechel has
been saying, and that's what Okrand spoke out against: you can't say
"There's no harm in drawing this analogy..." when Okrand specifically said
there was. If/when he says it's a noun, then it will be known as a noun.
Until then, you risk leaving people in the dark as they flip through their
dictionaries madly trying to figure out what weird grammar you're using
that lets you put all those verbs there.
Maybe when Okrand's not there to ask any more and has given us some more to
go on can we pull stunts like what you're talking about, but until then, we
must eerr on the side of caution. Bear in mind that not everyone can have
access to the workings of your mind which coins new words. Unless it's
recorded someplace (like the dictionary) where newbies can find it, you'll
leave them scratching their ridges in confusion.
>(2) If that is accepted, my criticized extension **{qachbav vIyIt} = "I walk
>around the building" seems little different from *{qach bav vIyIt} = "I walk an
>orbit of the building". This is much shorter than the above suggested "I walk
>on a route which resembles a circle outside the building".
Indeed; were "bav" a noun, I'd say that your phrase was not bad. Not
great, but not bad. But it isn't. And compounding with a coined noun is
even harder to track down, I might add.
It's strange, though, that so many of us have managed fairly well without
resorting to such drastic changes (coining nouns from verbs is one thing,
but inventing suffixes? adverbs? these are pretty clearly closed classes
in Klingon), and yet you seem sure that Klingon can't possibly express
things that have already been said in it without them.
~mark