tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 13 09:23:33 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: imperatives of verbs of state (round 2)

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: <[email protected]>

> regarding the so-called rule to use suffixes {-egh} or {-chuq} with
> imperatives of verbs of state:
> kgt says these suffixes are *generally* used with such imperatives.
>
> instead of being a rule or prohibition, i think that this statement is
simply
> an observation that, most of the time (i.e., generally), it only makes
SENSE
> to use these suffixes.
>
> in other words, not using the suffixes is not in any way wrong, but
rather,
> it's simply less common than with the suffixes.
>
> there may also be an implication that klingons in general prefer to have
> active agents in their imperatives, rather than simply passive patients
who
> experience what the verb denotes.

*applause*  Congratulations on a very clever way to try to get around what
Okrand said . . . again.

Why are you so focused on the word "generally"?  TKD and KGT are not
rulebooks, they are descriptions of the language.  "It should be remembered
that even though the rules say 'always' and 'never,' when Klingon is
actually spoken these rules are sometimes broken." (TKD p. 9)

The lack of {-'egh} and {-moH} on {taD} in the idiom on KGT p. 117 is
described as "peculiar, though not really ungrammatical."  In HolQeD v.3 n.3
p.12 Okrand says that, regarding whether one may use {-ghach} on a verb
without a suffix:

------
The general answer to that is "no."  Now having said that, can you do it? .
 . . Yeah you can, but, it has a feeling in Klingon kind of like the
English word *pleasureness or something like *collapsation -- it follows the
rules, it's a -tion, an activity and all, but it doesn't happen to work.
However, if you said it would you be understood?  Yes, but it's weird.
Klingon is a little more forgiving than English, people wouldn't jump up and
down and say that's horrible and ungrammatical, but they would say that's a
unique formation.  Perhaps appropriate for the occasion, but not necessarily
a word for all times.
------

Notice his use of the word "general" above.  The implications of violating
this "general" rule are spelled out by Okrand.  In the case of {taD}, the
{-egh}+{-moH} rule is the difference between a literal statement and an
idiom that means something different.  It is not something to be thrown
aside.  It is not ungrammatical to leave it off, but it WILL be perceived by
Klingons as wrong or weird.

And if the point isn't to speak as Klingons do, what's the point of
listening to ANYTHING Okrand says?

SuStel
Stardate 4199.1

Back to archive top level