tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 13 17:23:57 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [KLBC]: Family

From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>

>> 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.

The text of TKD p. 62 states: "Klingon verbs ending in Type 9 suffixes
(other than {-'e'} "interrogative" and {-wI'} "one who does, one which
does") always occur in sentences with another verb.  Hence they are verbs in
subordinate clauses."

Okrand then goes on to give "a few further examples [to] make the use of
subordinate clauses clear."  This indicates that the examples given are not
meant to be an exhaustive list of allowed subordinate clause suffixes, just
examples of how the clauses can appear in either order.  Therefore, a strict
interpretation of the rules leaves one to conclude that {-pa'} MUST be able
to appear in either order.  If it cannot, then the rule is wrong.  That is
certainly possible, but there is little or no evidence to suggest that.  We
simply have a lack of examples of {-pa'} subordinate clauses coming at the
end.

The fact that {-mo'} is listed in the Appendix is the only thing that
reassures me that the verbal {-mo'} might indeed only come first.  The fact
that it "is identical to the Type 5 noun suffix {-mo'} and has the same
meaning" (TKD p. 175) suggests to me that they are interpreted with the same
meaning, not necessarily that they are used in the same place in a sentence.
(It MIGHT mean that, but Okrand wasn't saying anything at all about grammar
in this entire section.)

>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.

I agree with this.  However, I don't feel it is a valid argument against
alternating the order of certain clauses.  (I don't think you meant it as an
argument, just a statement of your opinion.)

>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?

I stated the exact quote above.  It is not "used" like the noun suffix, it
is "identical to" and "has the same meaning."  Since a noun suffix cannot
truly be completely *identical* to a verb suffix (you can't always put noun
suffixes on verbs, for example), the exactly meaning of this statement is a
little unclear.  Then again, this *could* mean exactly that: that it's
exactly the same suffix, and must therefore be used in exactly the same way
as the noun suffix -- i.e., putting it first.  This argument is truly at the
edge of resolution, but refuses to choose sides.

>> 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.

I'm making no assumptions.  The rule expliciltly states that all Type 9 verb
suffixes except for {-'a'} and {-wI'} form subordinate clauses.  This
includes {-DI'}, {-chugh}, {-pa'}, {-vIS}, {-bogh}, and {-meH}.  (I'll deal
with the ones I missed in a minute.  The ones listed here are from the
original edition of TKD.)  All of these form subordinate clauses, by the
definition given on TKD p. 62.  {-bogh} is further defined as a relative
clause marker.  Thus, a relative clause must also be a subordinate clause.
{-meH} is further defined as a purpose clause marker.  Thus, a purpose
clause must also be a subordinate clause.  We have now defined all of the
originally known Type 9's as subordinate clauses or not subordinate clauses.
And p. 62 states that all subordinate clauses may come in either order.  The
definitions of {-bogh} and {-meH} must be considered to override this
ordering rule.  Their other clause status has other placement restrictions
which must be obeyed.

Now arrives TKD version 2.  The Federation Scientific Research Council has
new information on Type 9 suffixes.  They have learned of {-mo'}, {-jaj},
and {-ghach}.  The ordering rule from before may or may not apply to them.
Unfortunately, the Addendum does not say.  We must conclude that {-jaj} and
{-ghach} cannot make subordinate clauses, because they do not "always occur
in sentences with another verb" (TKD p. 62).  So, the only new suffix the
ordering rule *may* apply to is {-mo'}.

{-mo'} is certainly a subordinate clause.  No problems there.  However, we
still have no solid evidence that it is governed by the ordering rule,
because that rule was learned and worded before knowledge of the existence
of this suffix.  All Klingon text unearthed (or would that be "decoded"?) at
this time shows all instances of {-mo'} verb clauses as coming *before* the
main verb.  Thus, we *still* have no solid fact proving that the {-mo'}
clause must come first, but we do see that it's likely to be unusual to put
it last.

Again, as for {-pa'}, it is possible that there is a rule stating that it
may only come first, but that rule has not been discovered, and there is an
explicit rule which states otherwise.  Certainly the total lack of instances
of {-pa'} coming last shows that it is probably unusual to put it there.
This is why I feel less comfortable with controlling the positioning of
{-pa'}.

Actually, I also find it more difficult to read certain clauses if they are
placed last.  However, because they *are* permitted, I must conclude that
the fault lies in my parsing ability, not in the known rules of the
language.  I try to adapt to things like this.

SuStel
Stardate 98198.1

Back to archive top level