<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/30/2021 12:27 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D422A1B9-B0D4-4C5A-BE9E-FD6C5E1CFA9E@mac.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">At the core of this apparent difference in English, we simply don’t know almost nothing about formality in Klingon.
One assumes that Clipped Klingon is not formal. One assumes that the honorific {-neS} is formal. One assumes that labeled slang is informal.
That’s about all that I personally feel safe to assume about formality in the Klingon language, except where context suggests formality.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with your estimations of Clipped Klingon, honorific, and
slang. However, I think we know a bit more than that.</p>
<p>According to KGT...</p>
<p>The word <b>ra'wI'</b> can be used informally as a title for
anyone who gives orders, but in formal situations you would use
the person's correct title.</p>
<p>Young Klingons who usually speak with slang will still speak
formally in formal situations.</p>
<p>Always speaking formally does not mark one as out of touch, just
very traditional.</p>
<p>The erroneous omission of <b>lu-</b> is usually overlooked,
except in formal situations.</p>
<p>Ritualized speech that must be said a certain way and does not
change with the language are, while they are still grammatical,
considered highly formal examples of Standard Klingon.</p>
<p>A formal way to give someone's name is to state the given name
plus the father's name, as in <b>tI'vIS barot puqloD</b> <i>(T'vis,
son of Barot).</i> It is also formal to name someone just as
someone's son or daughter, as in <b>mogh puqloD.</b><br>
</p>
<p>According to a newsgroup post, an even more formal way to state
someone's name is like this: <b>qeylor qeylIn puqloD molor tuq</b><i>
Kahlor, son of Kahlin, House of Molor.</i></p>
<p>An even more formal way than that is to state <b>tay' qeylor
molor tuq je</b><i> Kahlor is from the House of Molor.</i></p>
<p>According to an email to De'vID, who was asking about plurals, <b>SuvwI'
legh HoD SoH je</b> may occur in informal conversation, while in
formal writing you'd need to say <b>SuvwI' bolegh SoH HoD je.</b>
This was an example of adding new information while in the middle
of speaking, so the prefix was wrong, but the speaker just went
on. You wouldn't do that in formal writing.</p>
<p>According to another email to De'vID (I think), <b>lojmItjaj</b><i>
Saturday</i> is used for more formal occasions than <b>ghInjaj</b><i>
Saturday,</i> though the two words are otherwise
interchangeable.</p>
<p>That's what I found simply searching my sources for the word <i>formal.</i>
There is undoubtedly more when you consider synonyms.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D422A1B9-B0D4-4C5A-BE9E-FD6C5E1CFA9E@mac.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">In the third movie, after Kruge had disintegrated his first gunner for blowing up a ship he was ordered to target “engines only”, and disobeyed to the point of saying that destroying the ship was just a lucky hit (probably an informal reply),</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The reply was <b>bach Do', qaH!</b><i> A lucky shot, sir!</i>
Just a noun phrase and an attribution, not a complete sentence.
Seems informal to me.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D422A1B9-B0D4-4C5A-BE9E-FD6C5E1CFA9E@mac.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> I’m pretty sure that when he later gave an order to his replacement gunner and asked him if he understood (probably formal), that gunner’s reply, {HIja’ qaH} was probably pretty formal.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Both question and response were informal and mostly Clipped.</p>
<p>Kruge: <b>baHwI', DoS yIbuS, QuQ neH. yaj'a'?<br>
</b>Gunner #2: <b>yajchu', qaH.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D422A1B9-B0D4-4C5A-BE9E-FD6C5E1CFA9E@mac.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Also, Kruge’s “You will be remembered honorably” to Valkris was probably formal. Her bow while acknowledging that she understood was also fairly obviously formal.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Might be. I don't automatically assume that something heartfelt
has to be formal. I don't agree that it's obvious. He does use
complete sentence, but using a complete sentence is not
necessarily done because of formality.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D422A1B9-B0D4-4C5A-BE9E-FD6C5E1CFA9E@mac.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Still, it’s situational more than choice of grammar or vocabulary that usually implies any level of formality, so far as I can tell most of the time. {qaH} is probably used formally, most of the time. There’s a hint there.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Nope. Used in Clipped sentences all over <i>Star Trek III.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D422A1B9-B0D4-4C5A-BE9E-FD6C5E1CFA9E@mac.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">While some may be bothered by the “crap” about Klingon being an alien language, … well… it’s an alien language. Why are you learning an alien language if you don’t like dealing with crap about an alien language?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It's a constructed language for a fictional alien culture. As
such, the only valid appeals to cultural issues within the
language are those which call upon the fiction. And because
language is usually tied so heavily to culture, one can be
frustrated when others call upon cultural traits to interpret the
language where those cultural traits don't come from the fiction
that one accepts.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>