tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 29 05:31:42 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Verbs of Motion

jatlh charghwI':
> I accept but dislike the use of {-Daq} on nouns acting as direct
> objects of verbs. Since I don't need to use them and can get
> exactly the same meaning without {-Daq}, I just don't use the
> {-Daq} and I can sleep well with one less thing to worry about.


As I'm curious about understanding the workings of the language, as well as
using it, I don't want to ignore problems like this.  I want to see if I or
anyone else can work them out.  No harm there.


> > It's unclear whether these two lists should be joined.  Personally, I
hate
> > this part of the interview, for reasons which Captain Krankor brings up
in
> > HolQeD Vol 8, No 1.  It breaks everything we thought we knew about
Klingon.
>
> That's a blatant exaggeration.


Damn straight!  Exaggeration is a wonderful tool to use to make a point.  It
should also have been blindingly clear that it was MEANT as an exaggeration,
and I'm sorry  I didn't make that clear.  (Besides, it's a sentence I've
picked up from the writings of Krankor, anyway.)


> Okrand expanded on what he said about {ghoS} way back in the
> original TKD. That's all. It did surprise many of us and many of
> us didn't like it very much, but to say that it breaks
> everything we knew about the language is pouty and silly. Let go
> of it. I thought Krankor was a bit overly zealous in his
> disaproval in his article and I feel comfortable saying the same
> about you now. You are a good person with a lot of impressive
> talents and an impressive skill with the language, and you are
> taking this one point entirely too seriously. You could let go
> of it and have a happy life. You choose to experience your angst.


Where o where are you getting this psychoanalysis from?  I sure wish I could
state a contrary opinion without being laid out on a couch!


> > I don't know about everyone else, but I am getting the distinct
impression
> > that Okrand doesn't have a strong handle on Klingon (whoever claimed
that he
> > does?), and simply cannot maintain consistency.
>
> I think that is quite unwarrented. I think Okrand spent a lot of
> years not memorizing his own vocabulary and not practicing the
> use of his own language such that it took work for him to make
> any meaningful sentences. His successes were many, but he also
> tried sometimes to be especially alien or interesting and came
> up with some really weird stuff he should appropriately be
> embarrassed by, like his first translation of "I'm lost. Where
> am I?". Meanwhile, there are many things he simply has not
> fleshed out yet and as a particular area of the grammar or a
> particular area of meaning becomes interesting to him and he
> develops those areas, he will definitely sometimes make choices
> we would not have made.
>
[...]
>
> To be honest, you sound like someone who just wants to be upset.
> Something else is bothering you and you don't want to deal with
> it, so you pick this to get worked up about. It definitely does
> not deserve this much attention. Just forget {-Daq}. When other
> people use it, wince and move on. This works. Trust me.
>
> I mean, I was interviewing Okrand for over an hour. As a stream
> of verbs he was considering, he listed {'el} as one that doesn't
> use {-Daq} on its direct object, and you caught him in another
> instance saying that it could use {-Daq} on its direct object.
> That is really the only inconsistency you have uncovered here,
> and it is really a rather small thing, considering that you can
> leave off the {-Daq} and your problem evaporates.
>
> I honestly doubt there are many areas in your life where you
> exhibit the kind of consistency you are now expecting Okrand to
> hold to. Lighten up on the man. This stuff is fun, remember?


Ahem.  I was not angry at Okrand for anything.  I am stating an opinion.  I
think that many of the inconsistencies and unexpected bits we find in
Klingon canon (and we do find a lot of them)
occur because Okrand simply goofed.  I don't have a problem with this, I
simply think it is.  It causes a number of headaches for people not content
to ignore the problem.

Sometimes, Okrand's mistakes lead to more interesting bits.  We winced when
we heard {wa' tera'ngan je wa' romuluSngan} come out of Vixis' lips, but now
we know that it's a common grammatical error perpetrated by Klingon youths
to put the conjunction in the wrong place.  Okrand realized his mistake
(either on his own or through a Klingonist) and made it "correct."

The questions do not evaporate if you ignore them.  They linger, and remain
questions, and I will always wonder about them.  I don't see how your
analysis of my psyche relates to the functioning of Klingon noun suffixes.
(Shucks, I wish there was the equivalent of the {-neS} suffix in English.)

So please reread my statement (quoted above) and take the assumption that
I'm not trying to be negative in any way.  Take it as a simple opinion,
which is as it was meant.  I have no illusions that Okrand is some kind of
language-god.  He's just a linguist who's come up with a fun pastime for us.
When I see errors in Klingon, I don't automatically assume they were
intentional.  (For instance, I am not at all convinced that mislabeling
{bachHa'} as a noun in KGT was intentional.  I think it was an ironic
coincidence.  I could be wrong, of course.  I also think that annotating it
as a likely Okrand joke is akin to assuming that Okrand can do no wrong.)


SuStel
Stardate 99992.1

Back to archive top level