tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 14 17:00:00 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Imperatives with {-eghmoH}, round 2

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

ghItlhpu' SIvten:

>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.

jangpu' SuStel:

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

I don't think that's *necessarily* what's going on here. I like SIvten's 
theory that Klingon might prefer active agents of imperatives; it certainly 
stands up with regard to the fact that {-eghmoH} is generally used.

taHmoH SuStel:

>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)

This I agree with. But our knowledge of Klingon is by no means complete; I 
agree that we should probably stick to constructs that we know are 
grammatical and legal.

taH:
>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.

So don't add such words to your dictionary; these are {mu'mey ru'} 
"temporary words" (look at KGT for a fuller description). Things like this 
are sometimes done to give oratory punch (if I understand some of Okrand's 
stuff correctly), but to do it in a letter between two friends would be, to 
quote British English, "not the done thing".

I have a question, though: Okrand has said that {lo'laH} is a simple verb, 
not a verb + suffix. Why, then, do we have {lo'laHghach} in the dictionary? 
Is it a word that predates the amalgamation of {lo'} and {-laH} into the 
simple verb?

taH:
>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.

The general case is what we all should probably follow. Unless you choose to 
speak a dialect of Klingon (which is possible, although we use {ta' Hol} on 
this list), general cases are our best friends. Exceptions to rules are very 
rarely perceived as anything but.

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

maj. bIlughchu'qu'. tlhIngan Hol'e' Delbogh Okrand Dalo' DaneHchugh, 
tlhIngan HolHomHeymey'e' ja'chuq latlh ghommey. 'ach naDev tlhIngan Hol'e' 
Delbogh Okrand neH wIlo'. (SKI: We speak {ta' Hol} here.)

Savan.

QeS lagh

_________________________________________________________________
Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:  
http://ninemsn.match.com

Back to archive top level