tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 22 21:51:25 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)

[email protected] on behalf of Terrence Donnelly wrote:

> >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.

The Klingons did.

Remember, Klingon is not OUR language.  It is the language of the Klingons.  
We must engage in the fiction that Marc Okrand is reporting back his 
information gathered from Maltz and other Klingons.  Klingon is an artificial 
language which is meant to *simulate a natural language*.

Okrand is reporting that {-la'} and {-luH} will occasionally be heard among 
Klingons.  Okrand doesn't mean "go ahead and say {-la'} and {-luH} whenever 
you want."  He is simply reporting that {-la'} and {-luH} are occasionally 
heard among Klingons.

> 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?

This little tidbit of information is there for two reasons: (1) [In the 
fiction of the Star Trek universe] Klingons do it.  (2) [In the real world] It 
adds more depth to the language.  It's a lot more fun than just simply saying 
"Okay, go ahead and use these two new suffixes whenever you want."

> [...]
> >   "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.

I read them that way, too.  That doesn't mean you've solved the riddle and are 
entitled to use them inappropriately.  Or rather, you can say what you want, 
but you'll have to deal with the consequences.

If I wanted to goofle-snap, I could add the word "goofle-snap" to the end of 
every phrase goofle-snap.  It might be fun goofle-snap.  It might even create 
a certain effect I need goofle-snap.  However goofle-snap, I'll have to deal 
with the consequences goofle-snap.  People will look at me very strangely 
goofle-snap.  After a few sentences goofle-snap, people will ask me to stop 
goofle-snap.  If I keep going goofle-snap, I'll annoy everybody goofle-snap, 
and they won't want to talk to me goofle-snap.  Suffice it to say goofle-snap, 
I'll use "goofle-snap" very infrequently goofle-snap.

> [...]
> >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?

No.  He's saying that Okrand has simultaneously given us a pseudo-suffix and 
then hedged it with so many qualifiers that we'll rarely use it, and when we 
do it'll be highly marked.  You said yourself that Okrand likes to keep us 
guessing.  Why would he give us the easy way out by saying "use {-la'} and 
{-luH} all you want"?  No, he's going to make us work at 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.

Yup.  Live with it.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97643.2

Back to archive top level