Klingon Grammar Addenda
Key:
Spoken by Okrand
| Inferred from canon |
Accepted usage
- Don't assume that any naked verb can be used as a
noun, just because some can. [HQ3:3 p.11]
- Don't try to break compound nouns into parts and use the
parts either alone or in other compounds. [KLI: A. Anderson,
4/13/97, "Re: SopDaq"]
- Don't coin new compound words from existing parts.
[KLI: D. Trimboli, 11/30/96, "Re: KLBC: Re: This
message is too long"]
| These last two are not so much stated rules as impressions we've
gotten from MO over the years. You will sometimes encounter
adhoc compounds. But beware of the "hindsight" effect:
the compound word that seems so clear to you may make no sense at
all to someone else. |
- In reference to inanimate objects, this suffix means "thing
which does" (joqwI') or
"thing which is used for" (nanwI'). [TKD; KGT]
- In reference to animate beings, this suffix means "one who
does" (baHwI') or "one
who is" (pujwI'). [TKD]
| This suffix is actually defined in TKD, but in
a confusing and incomplete way. |
-
These suffixes are not simply equivalent to tIn/mach, but create a new concept,
often requiring an entirely different English word to translate, eg.
loD/loDHom "man/boy",
bIQ/bIQ'a'
"water/ocean". [TKD]
| These suffixes are defined in TKD, but this point is not clearly
made there. |
-
The plural of porgh is probably porghmey (and that of lom, lommey); most likely, Du' is used only for body parts, not
the body itself. [KLI: R. Stewart, 11/16/97, "Re:
KLBC tlhIngan yot 'ay' cha'DIch"; KLI: R. Stewart, 11/26/96, "Re:
KLBC Plurals"]
There is evidently some latitude in the grey areas. MO tells us
on the MSN forum that DIr has the plurals DIrDu' and DIrmey depending on whether it is
still on the animal, or off of it. (Does this mean that, if I serve
my guests Pipius Claw and each one gets several, I would refer to
them as pachmey?).
However, in KGT, he describes the handles of a type of pot as
DeSDu', although they
were obviously never alive at all!
My theory is that Klingons are deeply interested in whether a
body part is still attached to its body and alive Du', or detatched and dead
mey. Their interest in
the bodies themselves is different, where their only concern is
whether it is a person pu' or a nonperson mey. In the case of inanimate
objects, their interest in body parts causes the Klingons to confer
"honorary" status as a body part on objects that resemble them;
these objects receive the Du' suffix to make the identification
clear.
This could also be the origin of the "scattered around" meaning
of mey. When a body
part is separated from its body, its plural changes from
Du' to mey, and separation could come to
imply not merely removal but dispersal; eventually this "dispersal"
meaning could be generalized to words whose usual plural is
pu'. |
-
A "being capable of using language" must be a true living
being (not a talking computer, for example) and must have an
inherent capacity for speech (which may not be manifested, in the
case of infants or someone who has lost the power of
speech). [KLI: S. Boozer, 7/12/98, "Anecdotal
Okrand"]
- Daq and
vo' are strictly
locative; they refer only to motion, or location. They
can't be used in other situations in which English uses "to", "in"
or "from" in a metaphorical sense (eg. "I translate from English to
Klingon"; you can't use Daq for "to" or vo' for "from"). [HQ8:1 p.7]
- Some prepositional concepts in English are verbs in
Klingon: eg. tlhej for
"with", both in the sense of "accompanying" and "doing something
together with", eg. Dargh vItlhutlh 'ej
mutlhej torgh "Torg drinks tea with me."
[HQ2:4 p.18].
- It seems that a noun with a Type 5 suffix can modify a
single noun (as opposed to whole sentences), eg. ghe''orDaq luSpet "a black hole in the
Netherworld". [PK; BoP]
As has been pointed out [HQ6:2 p.2], this construction is most
likely not an example of the NN pattern, but a contraction of
something involving a bogh
verb: balDaq chenmoHlu'bogh
Duj ship (which someone assembled) in a
bottle. But, since they functionally act the same way, the
point is probably moot.
We usually call this the "CatInTheHat" problem;
ironically, it doesn't really apply to this situation. "In the hat"
doesn't mean the Cat is sitting inside a hat, rather, it's an
English idiom for "wearing a hat" and would probably be translated
mIv tuQtaHbogh
vIghro'. |
- Verbs of motion have different meanings when used
with and without Daq
and object prefixes:
- X(Daq) vIY "I Y to X" (Daq is optional);
- Xvo' vIY "I Y away from X";
- XDaq
jIY "I Y at/on/in X".
[HQ7:4 p.8]
This is a restricted and special usage, and should not be
overused or generalized to other types of verbs or noun phrases.
I've been trying to explain the new rules to myself:
- X(Daq) vIY
- The groundwork for this phrase was actually laid in TKD,
where MO says that "There are a few verbs whose meanings
include locative notions, such as
ghoS approach, proceed.
The locative suffix need not be used on nouns which are the
objects of such verbs." [TKD p.28] Maybe this means the rule is now extended
to all verbs of motion, that whenever a verb of motion has an object,
motion toward that object is assumed. The
Daq, we're told, is
optional, and I'm guessing is an ungrammatical usage, like leaving
lu off of plural
lu' objects or using double negatives in English:
people are known to do it, but it's also recognized as "wrong". I
wouldn't take it to mean that nouns with Type 5 suffixes can be
used as direct objects in general.
- Xvo' vIY
- Except for this one, of course. This does fly in the face of
everything we thought we knew about direct objects and Type 5 noun
suffixes. All I can guess is that this is some special usage
peculiar to vo' used
with motion verbs. At least, if we want to say Xvo' Y vIjaH "I go from X to Y", we
can still use the same verb prefix! But what, if anything does
Xvo' jIY now mean? "At
a distance from X, I am Ying"?
- XDaq jIY
- The grammar of this isn't new, the only innovation is that it is
now restricted to mean only some type of movement Y occuring
at place X.
So, maybe the new rules in essence are
- To indicate motion, use a motion verb with a direct object.
- Motion towards is the default and needs no marker.
- Motion away from needs the marker vo'.
- To indicate location, use a motion verb (or any verb) with a "no
object" verb prefix.
- Use Daq for action occuring at the point of reference.
- Use vo' for action occuring at a remove from the point of reference.
If these are correct, then the new rules have actually given us a
pretty neat new set of tools. It doesn't change our understanding of
locative phrases, but adds a way to refine the meanings we can
express with Daq and
vo'.
An unanswered question is how to use those words which, MO
tells us in TKD, never require Daq, such as naDev or Dat. They fit fine in the first
example: naDev vIghoS "I
am coming here", but what about the other uses? We've encountered
naDevvo' on the PK tape,
and it's probably still OK, but how would you say "I walk in (i.e.
while being) here": ?naDev
jIyIt or ?naDevDaq
jIyIt?
The observant student will note that some of the examples
in TKD and elsewhere don't agree with these new rules. One guiding
principle of the KLI is that the newest rule is generally the most
correct, so the old examples should be considered superceded. |
- This construction doesn't just show possession, but is also used
as the grammatical Genitive. That is, it forms phrases that are
equivalent to English adjectives of origin romuluS HIq, composition peQ chem, or location tlhIngan wo'. [HQ3:3 p.6]
| I have long believed that the underlying logic of the N1N2
construction is that the set of items specified by N2 is restricted
to a subset specified by N1. This explains not only the possessive
use (yaS taj "the
officer's knife" = "of the universal set of knives, the one which is
the officer's"), but also the Genitive (peQ chem "magnetic field" = "of the
universal set of fields, the one pertaining to magnetism"). |
- Multiple NNN(N...) formations are allowed. eg.
SuvwI' qa' patlh "a
warrior's level of spiritual attainment" [S33]
- Noun apposition, different from the NN construction, is
allowed, eg. DuraS be'nI'pu' be'etor
lurSa' je "Duras's sisters, Betor and Lursa" [S26; HQ3:1 p.5]
| The difference between NN possession and apposition is that in the
former, the more general term comes last, preceded by the more
specific, while in the latter, the more general term comes first.
Also, in the former, the two nouns combine to form a new concept,
while in the latter, the two nouns (or phrases) both refer to
different aspects of the same concept (that is, "Duras's sisters"
and "Betor and Lursa" both refer to the same persons). |
- Nouns representing locative prepositional concepts, such as
retlh, bIng, botlh,
etc., when used with pronouns, follow the pronoun in a NN
formation, and the pronoun suffixes are not used, eg. jIH retlhDaq "alongside me", not
*retlhwIjDaq [KGT p.24]
©1999 Terrence Donnelly
|