tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 22 09:01:45 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KGT exegesis (was Re: New suffix in KGT)



At 10:07 PM 8/21/97 -0700, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
>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".
>

Except that "ain't" already existed in popular speech.  When the English
grammarians got to it, it was their task to explain its existence, and they
labeled it as substandard.  But nowhere, ever, did anyone use {-la'/-luH} 
before Okrand did.   True, we had occasionally on this list commented on the
inability to use both Type 5 suffixes together, but no-one ever mentioned that
a solution to this was to _combine_ the two suffixes.  Why would Okrand have
to comment "for completeness" on something that no-one had ever done?

[...]
>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 personally think you are taking him more seriously than he intended.  I read
all these elaborate disclaimers as typical examples of how Okrand speaks
out of both sides of his mouth and likes to keep us guessing.

[...]
>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.
>

So, you're saying that Okrand has simultaneously given us a new suffix and
then hedged it with so many qualifiers that we'll never actually use it?
If he just gave it as an example, what is it an example of?  Can we use this
to extrapolate our own "intentional ungrammaticalities"?  Of course not. For
example, I, for one, would never dream of conflating any other verb suffixes as 
he did with  {-laH} and {-lu'}. Can we use it to excuse others' grammatical
errors?  No, because we have no criteria to separate a legitimate "intentional 
ungrammaticality" from a simple error.  So this suffix has no meaning
whatsoever!

Let me get this straight:  Okrand presented a new slang suffix that we are
not to use except in informal spoken situations (which means for most of
us, never) and that we can't use as an example to guide other slang
usage.  He included the section on {-luH/-la'} just because the book wasn't
long enough without it, I guess. 8+)

>-- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
-- ter'eS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711



Back to archive top level