tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 14 23:04:15 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [KLBC]: Family

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:39:27 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> 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.

By that interpretation, {-meH} MUST be able to appear in either 
order. The rule that says this is not true breaks this rule and 
should explicitly say so. {-bogh} might similarly be better 
served to have explicit reference to it being an exception to 
the rule about subordinate clauses. We know that {-jaj} is an 
exception because, like {-wI'} and {-'a'}, it does not make a 
clause subordinate. I'm sure we can at least agree on {-jaj}.

The point is that there is a "strict" interpretation and a 
"conservative" one. Usually these are one and the same for most 
grammatical rules, but we apparently have found a place where 
they diverge. I go for conservative interpretation and you go 
for the strict one. I choose the conservative one because I know 
that text written with that interpretation is more easily read 
and heard and understood and nobody contests the validity of the 
grammar of text written or spoken with this interpretation.

Simply put, when a subordinate clause comes first, you then 
become ready to hear the main clause. When a main clause comes 
first, you then hear words continue to flow and it takes time to 
figure out why. "You have already said the main thing you wanted 
to say. Why are you still talking? Is this a new sentence? Well, 
no. It is a subordinate clause and it refers back to the main 
clause you already stated. How annoying."

The strict interpretation gives you license to write text which 
is slightly more difficult to interpret and uses grammar unseen 
in canon. I fail to see what we gain by taking that 
interpretation. Is this really so valuable that it is worth the 
extention to known practice?

> 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 agree, though it is as close to a statement about the 
grammatical useage of the verb suffix {-mo'} as he came.

> >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.)

Yes. I'm just looking for some real value to be gained for the 
sake of the language by adding this somewhat dubious variation 
in word order, and I don't see it. At best, I can see rare 
instances where reversing the word order might be nice, if the 
subordinate clause is the "punch line" for the idea. Meanwhile, 
if we just say that this reverse word order is perfectly fine 
and valid, I see a lot of unnecessarily obfiscated text produced 
because of the English hell-bent determination to state anything 
with the word order scrambled in new and interesting ways, 
padded by sufficient helper words to prove our flare with the 
language (whether one can actually understand our ideas or not).
 
> >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.

Agreed. The only reason I'm tempted to take that more 
conservative interpretation is that whether {-mo'} is on a noun 
or a clause, its symantic function is identical. It provides the 
reason for the action of the main verb. Time stamps come first. 
Reasons apparently come first as well. It may very well not 
matter whether that reason is a noun or a clause.
 
> >> 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.

While this is obvious, my point is that if Okrand really meant 
for this rule to apply to ALL Type 9 suffixes except {-'a'} and 
{-wI'} he should have been more explicit in stating {-meH} and 
{-bogh} as exceptions.

My suspicion is that Okrand wrote the rule about subordinate 
clauses the same time he created the suffixes {-taHvIS}, {-DI'} 
and {-chugh}. Just because {-pa'} didn't appear in the appendix 
doesn't mean it wasn't created after this rule, and it doesn't 
mean that he didn't simply not get around to figuring out 
whether or not he thought reversing the clause order was such a 
great idea for that suffix. [Wow. check out the nested 
negatives.] We have other canon examples of reversal for the 
explicitly shown suffixes. We don't have canon for the reversal 
of any of the unmentioned ones.

> {-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.

If the reversal rule were as universal as you want it to be, I 
would have been happier if the {-bogh} and {-meH} exceptions 
were explicitly described as exceptions. They should have been 
described as such within the reversal rule in the first place. 
That is the kind of thoroughness which reduces beginner errors 
and reduces their frustration when they follow a rule to the 
letter and then get told, "Ah, but you forgot about this OTHER 
rule which supercedes that rule."

I prefer to take at face value the examples given for this 
reversal thing, and I'll even confess that I do so largely 
because I don't like the rule EVEN FOR THE EXPLICITLY STATED 
SUFFIXES. I think it works with {-chugh} in exceptional 
circumstances (again because the condition can be the "punch 
line" of the sentence). The others act as time stamps and it 
feels weird to have them after the main clause. I accept it, but 
rarely use it because I don't think the result is very easily 
parsed. I mean, I think it works for:

wa' nuv: jIHDaq nuHlIj DaQeq 'e' yImev!
latlh: nuHwIj vIQeqHa' bIjeghDI'.

wa' nuv: bIberghlaw'.
latlh: jIbergh SumtaHvIS qoHvetlh.

Meanwhile, I struggle some over:

wa' nuv: qatlh bIberghlaw'?
latlh: jIbergh Summo' qoHvetlh.

Why? Well, because it similarly tempts me to say:

wa' nuv: qatlh bIberghlaw'?
latlh: *jIbergh qoHmo'.*

See? That's not allowed. Meanwhile, I do see {qoHmo'} and 
{Summo' qoH} as being identical in their function in this 
sentence.

> 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'}.

Well, verbs with {-ghach} do always occur in sentences with 
another verb, but I know what you mean. {-ghach} has an 
identical function as {-wI'}, a known exception, converting a 
verb into a noun, and {-jaj} has a very similar function as 
{-'a'}, the other known exception, changing the nature of the 
entire sentence while the main verb remains the main verb.
 
> {-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.

I definitely like this interpretation. It is the way I approach 
it. I suspect that the reversal of clauses is similar to 
{-ghach}, in that it is easier to misuse it than to use it well, 
so most of the time, unless there is something about the thought 
that presses one to reverse the order, the {-mo'} clause should 
come first. Reversal "marks" the sentence. There are times when 
a marked sentence is appropriate, but this is rare.

Meanwhile, since varying word order is one of the fundamental 
elements of English, many of us want to change the word order 
around just because we can. In particular, as I remember when I 
was commenting on it, Qov was using {-mo'} clauses following the 
main clause more often than the regular order. I'm not sure 
I even saw her using it in the "conservative" order at all. That 
is what spurred me to become vocal about it, especially as she 
took on the role of BG. It was one of the very few areas where I 
felt she was spreading potentially bad grammar.

I felt much as I did back in the days when I had the 
"conservative" interpretation of {-ghach} and some here were 
writing few sentences that DIDN'T use {-ghach}, most often on 
bare verb stems. I got vocal to discourage what later turned out 
to be not altogether stellar use of the language.

I won't always be right. I was certainly wrong about {Hoch} 
combining with other nouns. So it is not like I am arrogant 
enough to think I'm always right. I'm just arrogant enough to 
think that I'm USUALLY right and when people write in a way that 
fits my interpretation, as a general rule, most of the time the 
result is better Klingon being spoken.
 
> 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'}.

Well, I don't control anything. I merely suggest with zeal.
 
> 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.

Here is where I disagree. I think the parsing works best with 
certain word order and the rules allow for certain exceptions 
which in exceptional cases can be easy to interpret. Meanwhile, 
people can embrace those exceptional rules in non-exceptional 
cases and simply produce language which is difficult to parse, 
no matter WHO is reading it or hearing it.

You are among the most skilled Klingonists here. If you have 
difficulty parsing something, it probably is not being stated 
very clearly.

> SuStel
> Stardate 98198.1

charghwI'

Back to archive top level