tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 13 07:21:20 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [KLBC]: Family

I really appreciate this rather balanced view on this topic, 
with references to canon that I lack the organization to have 
cited at this time.

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:14:02 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Qov <[email protected]>
> 
> >In {yabwIj vIlo'mo' jIqabbe'} the secondary clause with {-mo'}, {yabwIj
> >vIlo'mo'}, comes before the main clause, {jIqabbe'}.  In {jIqabbe' yabwIj
> >vIlo'mo'}, the secondary clause comes after the main clause.  Section 6.2.2
> >explains that the order of main and subordinate clauses is variable, and I
> >accept a {-mo'} clause as being one of these.  charghwI' looks at the rule
> >that a noun with the NOUN suffix {-mo'} must go before the clause it
> >modifies, and argues that {-mo'} the VERB suffix should be treated the same
> >way.  I disagree, but I humour him.

I've never argued that I knew it was wrong to put a {-mo'} 
clause following the main clause. I've instead repeatedly argued 
two points:

1. {-mo'} was not included in his one mention of subordinate 
clauses that said they can go in either order and there aren't 
any canon examples I've noticed that uses this sequence, so 
justification of using this order is weak at best, while 
everyone agrees that using it first is accurate. The only 
explanation of its useage is that it is "like" the noun suffix 
{-mo'} and we know the noun with such a suffix must come first.

2. In the vast majority of cases, I find Klingon sentences 
easier to understand when the {-mo'} clause comes first. Putting 
it second sounds very English to me in that with its reliance on 
helper words, English allows word order to be wildly variable. 
As a matter of style, one of the creative aspects of speaking 
English is varying word order for grammatical constructions in 
one's writing. Klingon, however, tends to use word order instead 
of helping words and the most classic Klingon word order is to 
set up the environment for the action (adverbials, time stamp 
and subordinate clauses) and then follow it with the main 
clause. It is like telling a joke with the main clause as the 
punch line. Jokes are not as effective if you keep talking after 
the punch line.

I know that the second justification is the weaker one, since 
Okrand has clearly stated that subordinate clauses created with 
{-taHvIS}, {-DI'} and {-chugh} can follow the main clause. 
Meanwhile, people really ought to notice that these are the only 
suffixes Okrand has explicitly shown as having the option of 
following the main clause.
 
> It's not quite THAT simple.  6.2.2. says that all verbs with Type 9 suffixes
> except for {-'a'} or {-wI'} are verbs in subordinate clauses.  {-DI'},
> {-chugh}, and {-vIS} are shown as examples of subordinate clauses, and shows
> us explicitly that they may occur in either order.
> 
> 6.2.3. shows that relative clauses are simply subordinate clauses which use
> {-bogh} as the Type 9 verb suffix, but their position in the sentence is
> restricted by the exact meaning intended.
> 
> 6.2.4. shows that purpose clauses are subordinate clauses which use {-meH}
> as the Type 9 suffix, however, they must always come before the verb or noun
> they are modifying.
> 
> {-pa'}, {-mo'}, {-jaj}, and {-ghach} are not even considered here, the last
> three because THEY HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED WHEN THIS RULE WAS WRITTEN.

Thank you.

> Every single example of {-pa'} that I can find (five, not including KGT or
> the last SkyBox, which I haven't finished typing up yet) has it at the
> beginning of the sentence.  {-pa'} WAS being considered when the rule was
> written, so we must assume that it is grammatically correct, by all the
> rules we know, to place it in either order.  Usage suggests that it may be
> usual to place it first, perhaps because it resembles a time stamp, but not
> wrong to place it last.

Or maybe it IS wrong to put it last. We really can't tell. I 
could argue that since the rule DID consider {-pa'} and didn't 
mention it that it is not included in the rule. I won't. I only 
know that I can't tell whether it is okay for it to follow the 
main clause or not, and since I know that it can preceed the 
main clause and it makes more sense to me there, then that is 
where I will always put it and that is where I will always 
encourage others to put it until we get that one canon example 
or that one explicit grammatical explanation that shows that it 
is okay to put it last.

I believe that the main reason people want to put it last is 
because their primary language allows variety in word order and 
people feel less creative if they can't mess with the word 
order. Meanwhile, Klingon has so many other opportunities for 
creativity, I don't personally feel any need to mess with the 
most clearly understood word order. I say that as a person who 
considers himself to be somewhat creative with the language.

There are many things in life I do badly, but I tend to succeed 
at creative use of this artificial language created for a 
fictitious race portrayed in a series of movies. It is a small 
compensation for the really important things I do so badly, but 
I'll take what I can get.

> {-mo'}, introduced in the Addendum, may or may not fall under the "either
> order" rule.  It was not being considered when that rule was written.  We
> know it may come first, because all of our examples show it doing so.  You
> can't go wrong by putting it first.  However, we have no information except
> the lack of evidence that {-mo'} may come last.

When I looked in the grammatical explanation of the verb suffix 
{-mo'} for some evidence about how to use it in a sentence, all 
I found was the reference that it is used "like the noun suffix 
{-mo'}". We know that suffix has to come first. We know that all 
the canon shows it coming first. So, why this drive to put it 
last?

> Technically speaking, {-jaj} and {-ghach} could "go in either order" too,
> but since {-jaj} is put on main verbs and {-ghach} nominalizes the verb,
> that doesn't make too much sense.

The only reason that these suffixes "technically speaking" could 
go first or last is that you've made the assumption that all 
unmentioned suffixes are related to subordinate clauses that can 
appear before or after the main clause. Why assume that the rule 
applies to any but the explicitly shown suffixes? The rule 
doesn't mention {-meH}. The explanation about {-meH} appears in 
its own separate rule. It could just as well be that he didn't 
mention {-meH} for the same reason he didn't mention {-pa'}. The 
only suffixes that the rule applies to for sure are those 
mentioned explicitly.

> charghwI' is, I feel, being a little presumptuous in stopping people from
> using it last, in that it isn't really a verifiable rule, but there is a
> certain logic to it.  {-mo'}, as a noun suffix, will always come first.  It
> is possible, though not necessary, that {-mo'} the verb suffix is related to
> this noun suffix, and behaves in the same way: that is always comes first.

Well, I don't stop people. If I did, they wouldn't be doing it, 
right? I only badger people to make sure that beginners realize 
that those who put it last are doing something they have no 
canon to back and no explicit grammatical justification for 
doing.

Meanwhile, as I said earlier, even I've used it last. It was a 
somewhat odd circumstance and I forget exactly where I did it 
(though I feel confident someone else will bring it up). I did 
it on purpose. It was not a casual action without intent. I 
think it was because the "because" part was the punch line and I 
didn't want to keep talking after I had made it.
 
> To make a sentence that everyone can accept, put the {-mo'} verb first, not
> last.  There is no ambiguity in this.  Future information may shed some more
> light on this.

And the same is true for {-pa'}, of course...
 
> SuStel
> Stardate 98184.2

charghwI'

Back to archive top level