<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/16/2021 11:36 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5EA819C0-491F-43BA-BCE3-0548EC03CD34@mac.com">I think
this is a really important point that is not universally
understood by Klingon speakers. There is no rule that says you
MUST use EVERY suffix that could possibly apply during ever
utterance. You use suffixes like English uses helper words. They
are optional, unless the meaning that the suffix adds is essential
to your motive for communication or is grammatically important to
the structure of the sentence. Clipped Klingon even drops
prefixes, which ARE grammatically required for well-expressed
Klingon.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">So, if you want to bring your listener’s attention
to a state of change, you need {-choH}. You don’t have to
agonize over every verb, wondering if it should have {-choH} on
it.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. But it's not just that most suffixes are optional. The point
is that Klingon words are not coded representations of objective
reality; they're coded representations of expression. I described
the difference between <b>Say'moH</b> and <b>Say'choHmoH</b> as
the difference between talking about being the cause of being
clean and being the cause of becoming clean. The one describes
what the end result is like; the other describes what the change
is like. They both may describe the same event, but I am
expressing different things about the event. I'm not just saying,
"Eh, there was a change, but I don't feel like pointing that out."
I choose the sentence that focuses on the concepts I'm trying to
convey.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5EA819C0-491F-43BA-BCE3-0548EC03CD34@mac.com">
<div class="">If getting the sequence of events or the timing of
events clear is important, then Type 7 can be really important,
but is otherwise not required.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Type 7 is the wrong type of suffix to say this for, because we
are told that the lack of a type 7 suffix means something
specific, not just that you didn't feel like saying it.</p>
<p>Using <b>-pu'</b> or <b>-ta'</b> means you are describing the
action from a viewpoint after it's done, and looking back on it as
a whole. This is known as <i>perfective.</i></p>
<p>Using <b>-taH</b> or <b>-lI'</b> means your viewpoint is zoomed
into the action so that it extends before and after your local
viewpoint's "horizon." This is known as <i>continuous</i> or <i>progressive.</i></p>
<p>Using none of these means you are neither looking back on the
action as a completed whole, nor are you zooming in until it
extends before and after your viewpoint. This is your default
aspect when you're not doing either of these things. It is used
for imperfective actions <i>(Now I chop the wood, now I pile it
up),</i> general truths <i>(The pen is blue),</i> states <i>(I
am happy), </i>and other things. The only way I can leave off
an aspect suffix is to describe an action as non-perfective and
non-continuous.</p>
<p>Again, that doesn't mean the action was never completed or was
necessarily instantaneous. It means I'm not setting up one of the
viewpoints that these aspects sets up.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5EA819C0-491F-43BA-BCE3-0548EC03CD34@mac.com">
<div class=""> If expressing humility before a greater power
authority is important, leaving out Type 8 could be fatal, but
it is otherwise optional.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Type 8 is said to be <i>always</i> optional. Adding it <i>will</i>
express humility, or at least a recognition of a higher authority,
but your situation would already have to be fatal where adding <b>-neS</b>
would tip the balance back in your favor.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5EA819C0-491F-43BA-BCE3-0548EC03CD34@mac.com">
<div class="">Think of it like a plural suffix on a noun. If
plurality is not important or if it’s obvious from context, you
don’ need the plural suffix, though it’s not wrong to use it
even if it is obvious or unimportant (so long as the noun isn’t
actually singular). Most suffixes in Klingon are like this, </div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, noun plurals are different. Not counting the exceptional
ones, unmarked nouns are neither singular nor plural. Regular
Klingon nouns have two plurality states: plural and neutral.
Picking one or the other usually isn't a matter of expressing
different things, as it is with other suffix choices, it's a
matter of preference and clarity.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5EA819C0-491F-43BA-BCE3-0548EC03CD34@mac.com">
<div class="">
unless it is critical to the overall grammatical construction,
like {-moH} or any Type 9 suffix (unless the verb has such a
strong association with a specific suffix like {-Daq} that the
direct object is assumed to be a location even without {-Daq}).</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">This is to say, that if someone leaves off a
non-essential, but applicable suffix, you don’t score Klingon
points for wagging your finger at them, </div>
</blockquote>
<p>That depends. Often, someone will leave off an "optional" suffix
in a translation and then believe they have expressed the same
thing as the English original. If you're translating <i>Sit down!</i>,
you pretty much need to say <b>yIba'choH.</b> Saying <b>yIba'</b>
means <i>Be in a seated position!</i> which, while it will get
the point across, does not express the same concept as the
original. In English, an imperative <i>be!</i> means <i>become!</i>
or <i>remain!,</i> which concepts require Klingon suffixes like <b>-choH</b>
and <b>-taH.</b> <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5EA819C0-491F-43BA-BCE3-0548EC03CD34@mac.com">
<div class="">
especially if the target of your finger is Dr. Marc Okrand.
While there are errors in canon, some suffix omission is simply
an example of the optional character of most suffixes most of
the time.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Most of the time, if you think Okrand erroneously missed a suffix
or was just dropping one because "hey, it's optional," consider
carefully the meanings of what he wrote with and without the
suffix. You'll usually find that the two versions mean different
things, and that the version he wrote translates properly.
Sometimes the two versions are so close to the same meaning it
makes no difference, and sometimes the grammar of the English
translation obscures the difference between them.<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>