tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 21 21:57:20 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KGT exegesis (was Re: New suffix in KGT)
jIja'pu':
>It makes me shudder to think that someone might latch onto the "suffix"
>{?-luH} and go *looking* for a reason to use it in everyday speech,
ja' ter'eS:
>Why? Why is the grammar "cute" and why does it make you shudder?
Perhaps "cute" is too mild a term. "Intentionally ungrammatical" is how
it is described in KGT. It's mentioned for completeness, the way one
might mention the substandard English word "ain't", which is not used in
"proper" speech, but is sometimes used intentionally for dramatic effect
by people who "know better".
I don't shudder just because this odd pseudogrammar exists. I shudder
because I know there are people who will go out of their way to create
an excuse to use it. Many people won't consider themselves comfortable
enough with the grammar to risk it, and some people who are comfortable
with the language will recognize the intended use and will avoid it in
cases where it is inappropriate. But a few -- like you, apparently --
will misunderstand Okrand's presentation and assume this is something
to be used like any other verb suffix.
This isn't a grammatical tool that we can use to craft sentences. This
is a convenient-shaped rock that we can bang awkwardly against our ideas
to try to mash them into saying something that would otherwise not be an
easy thing to say. That still doesn't mean that saying it is any better
than saying something else that communicates the same idea.
>There's nothing odd or cute about the use of -la'/-luH, it's a perfectly
>normal Type 5 suffix. Only it's derivation is "unusual", but if Okrand
>had simply said "Here's a new suffix", you'd accept it without an argument.
There most certainly *is* something "odd" about these "suffixes" -- they
are not real! They are *canonically* unreal, being described in KGT as
"totally artificial, made-up suffixes."
If Okrand had said "Here's a new suffix," I would have accepted it. But
he said "Here's something wrong that some people say to try to get past
the rules." I might say it myself in extremely casual conversation, now
that I know that it's a "known" error that I can expect to be recognized.
But I will expect people to shake their heads at me, and I certainly will
never *write* it.
By the way, I have never encountered a case where I needed to use both
the "ability" and "indefinite subject" ideas simultaneously. I often
*think* I have such a need, but it always evaporates when I examine the
idea more closely.
>For all, we know, the canonical suffixes had similar origins.
I doubt that very much. But you just acknowledged that -la'/-luH is not
a canonical suffix! It is, in fact, a canonically WRONG pseudo-suffix.
>Put another way, why did Okrand even include this suffix, if he didn't intend
>for us to use it? It seems pretty clearly to be a response to someone's
>wishlist, but it isn't a legitimization of anyone's practice, as far as I
>know. If he didn't want us to use the suffix, why did he mention it at
>all?
If he wanted us to use it, he wouldn't have said not to use it. :-)
"No one accepts such constructions as grammatical; their
inappropriateness, the way they grate on the Klingon ear,
is exactly what gives them elocutionary clout. A visitor
may hear one of these odd suffixes occasionally, but, as
with other intentionally ungrammatical forms, it is best
to avoid using them until one is extremely comfortable with
the nuances of Klingon style." -- KGT page 181
>[...]
>I grant you, the need for this suffix isn't a great one, and there's no reason
>to use it all the time, but I consider it another valid tool. Yes, it's
>slang _now_, but Okrand elsewhere implies that today's slang could be
>tomorrow's
>standard usage. I tend to think that which way it goes depends on us.
This fake suffix isn't slang, it's an intentional breaking of the rules.
Slang still follows conventional grammar, but it uses uncommon meanings
of certain words. {buy' ngop} is used for the idea of "Good news" or
"It's great to hear that", but it still says literally "The plates are full".
In English, we ask "Do I have to draw you a picture?" In Klingon, we say
{qachuHnIS'a'?} "Must I hurl a spear at you?" Both of these questions are
slang for "Do I have to clarify it for you?" But they use valid grammar.
The -la'/-luH discussion is not in the "slang" section. It is in the
section labeled "THE CHANGING RULES: ACCEPTABLE DEVIATION", under the
heading "Intentional Ungrammaticality". It gives a minor legitimacy
to {mu'mey ru'} "temporary words". But such words are intended to be
throwaway, one-time-only creations. They aren't meant to be made into
part of the standard grammar.
-- ghunchu'wI'