Something a beginner hears from the start, is how klingon is an "active" language, a language which favors vivid live descriptions. Which of course is true.. But unfortunately, when he/she asks "and how is this achieved ?" the only argument he/she'll hear is "through the use of verbs".
Meh. I don't really like this line of thought. Klingon may have
fewer parts of speech than English, and verbs may play a larger
role, but I don't think that the conventional wisdom, that using
verbs in Klingon is better than using nouns, is valid. I don't
agree with the luminary who philosophized that English is "vague,
wittering, and indecisive" but Klingon is not. Each language is
only as elegant as the speaker or writer who uses it.
Sometime ago, I'd written about the significance of the lack of an "adverbializer", and how according to many, overusing adverbs results in "telling" the listener, instead of actually describing vividly to him what you're trying to say.
One thing is a linguistic fact; the other is a matter of style. You can start with a telling-the-listener English sentence, translate it into a Klingon sentence that doesn't include adverbials, and still commit the literary sin of telling instead of showing.
The captain enters his quarters angrily.
pa'Daj 'el HoD. QeH.
No adverbials, just verbs, and we're still telling instead of
showing.
And recently I happened to read about something else which perhaps explains why okrand didn't choose to allow, to just stick as easily as we do in english, as many adjectives as we'd like on a noun. Now, the following link becomes relevant: https://www.writersdigest.com/improve-my-writing/nobles-writing-blunders-excerpt
I feel certain that Okrand didn't set up adverbials and verbs the
way he did to suggest that Klingons avoid poor writing styles.
Before moving on, I know that although we can't write in klingon "the
violent, expensive, ancient cat" as {vIghro' ral wagh tIQ}, we *can*
write {ralbogh 'ej waghbogh 'ej tIQbogh vIghro'}, or variations of
{ralbogh 'ej waghbogh vIghro' tIQ}, but I don't know how many people
would actually resort to doing something like this often in a regular
passage since it would create long and clunky constructions.
I would have no problem with this sort of thing. If the
description were apt and important, I don't see ralbogh
vIghro', waghbogh, 'ej tIQbogh as particularly more clunky
than the violent, expensive, ancient cat. It's got the
same number of words and one fewer syllable. It's just different.
Certainly a speaker or writer should avoid repeating overly long
descriptions for common things in their sentences, but that's a
style suggestion, not a grammatical one.
Now, another relevant matter with regards to characteristics in
klingon which make the language a direct and "action" one, is the
concept of glue words and the sticky sentences they create:
https://prowritingaid.com/art/347/How-to-use----The-Sticky-Sentence-Report.aspx
The fse "in/on" is the {-Daq} which is placed after the noun as a suffix.
The fse "for" is the {-vaD} which is placed after the noun as a suffix.
The fse "from" is the {-vo'} which is placed after the noun as a suffix.
The fse "if" is the {-chugh} which is placed after the verb as a suffix.
And because there's no point in analyzing each glue word, and in what
form it exists in klingon (and if it exists in the first place..), the
pattern becomes obvious:
Some glue words either don't exist, and most of the rest, are
expressed by suffixes.
More specifically, what you're calling "glue words" in English is
what Klingon calls "syntactic suffixes." There's a reason they're
called that, both noun and verb: they inform the listener or
reader of the grammatical role the words they're attached to have
in the sentence.
The advice that your article gives is the long way (ironically) to explain what William Strunk Jr. famously said in his book The Elements of Style: "Omit needless words." (mu' 'utHa' tInop.) Klingon can easily fall prey to the same problem, even if it's not from the same source. (I didn't say mu'mey poQbe'bogh mu'tlheghmeylIj tIlo'Qo'.)
In other words, don't try to apply style advice for English to
Klingon without first modifying it to be appropriate. There's
little point in worrying about Klingon "glue words" because
Klingon mostly doesn't use them.
So the reader doesn't have to spread his attention thin over kahless knows how many glue words, before reaching the verb/noun of significance. First the reader reads the verb/noun, and then comes the glue word equivalent suffix, making for a reading experience of what is truly an action-oriented language..
I don't see what that has to do with being action-oriented.
Action-oriented means that actions, verbs, dominate sentences. I
think the action-orientation of Klingon is rather overstated. A
lot of semantic meaning is carried by noun suffixes. "Pronouns as
to be" aren't verbal. The grammar of Klingon is quite simplified
compared to English, so nouns and verbs dominate in Klingon
(that's why there are nouns, verbs, and "everything else"), but
English nouns and verbs carry less meaning, so it uses "glue
words" and lots of prepositions and adverbial phrases to do the
same job.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name