Hello everyone, qo'Hey qepHom took place last week and Marc attended it. He agreed to take some questions in advance to have the time to run them by Maltz. In order to limit the amount of questions, we offered the opportunity to ask one to the presenters at the event (I was just reading them out). Additionally, there were a few questions during the open Q&A that followed that I think may be of interest to the community. Questions sent in advance: On the law'-puS-construction:
The following is not a complete transcript, just the excerpts that I think are of interest. The full video will be published eventually.
E.T.: "... X law', ... X puS" is only used with wotmey tam/adjectival verbs - that is what a lot of speakers agree upon. TKD, 6.6 (Comparatives and Superlatives) states: any verb expressing a quality or condition, which is agreed to be the above. But: could "quality or condition" also cover ability and predisposition? Maybe as slang?
Example: vIyajlaH HoS, Hoch yIntaHbogh Dep yajlaH puj _I can understand it better than any living being_ jIbechqang HoS, bIbechqang puj _I am more willing to suffer than you_
Already I used "... X HoS, ... X puj", one of the alternatives to law'-puS (KGT, "Change and staying current", p. 179) to mark it as unusual.
My question: Would that be:
* plains false (and I should be ashamed of myself) * a quirk of the speaker * some form of regional dialect or sociolect * something else?
MO: And the answer is, it's fine as wordplay. It's playing with the language, having a good time with it. It's not standard, but it's acceptable in those kinds of contexts. Absolutely. Especially when you use the other words instead of *law'* and *puS*, but you don't have to. So one of the questions was, was it a sociolect or something like that? You could say that. You could say that. It's a sociolect among people who have fun with language, people who play with words, and probably maybe younger kids. So the short answer is sure, have a good time. But know that it's this kind of special usage.
On reciprocal/reflexive with object:
E.T.: I'm looking for the best way to translate reflexive/reciprocal -'egh /-chuq sentences that in English would have an object.
Example: My brother and I always ask each other the same question. reH mu'tlhegh rap maghelchuq loDnI'wI' jIH je. This appears to be wrong because the verb prefix doesn't match the fact that there is an object.
Example: We throw the ball to each other. moQ majaDchuq. This has the same problem as above.
maHvaD moQ wIjaD. Is this the only correct way to do it?
MO: So the last one that you said, maHvaD moQ wIjaD, means _We throw us the ball_ or _We throw the ball to u_s, but it doesn't imply it's going back and forth, necessarily. So, it's not meaning what you wanted to say. But you're right, or whoever asked the question is right, that the -'egh and -chuq don't work the way you want them to work for this kind of a meaning.
So, the only way Maltz knew to say this stuff gets a little bit hairy, or if you don't want to use that technical term, hairy, it gets verbose or paraphrastic or something or other. So, you can incorporate the word baQ, which means _take turns_. So, moQ wIjaD 'ej wItlhur, _We throw and catch the ball_, _We throw the ball, we catch the ball, we take turns_, something like that. So, that was that one. Or, moQ wIjaD, _We throw the ball_, maQeqchuq, _We aim at each other_. You have to do something like that.
So in other words, you have to kind of explain it rather than just use it with the grammatical stuff. But the other example about the you and your curious brother, the -'egh thing, you know, doesn't work in that way. And once again, you have to do it longer. You can say, mayu''egh loDnI'wI' jIH je [mayu'chuq was meant]. So _My brother and I query each other_, something like that, and then go on. De' rap vIneH _We want the same information_. Or mu'tlhegh rap wIjatlh _We say the same sentence_, _We say the same thing as each other_. We have to do it paraphrastically. And then you throw in the reH, in the example that was given, throw in the reH in the right place to clarify whether the questioning is happening all the time or the same sentence. Same question is happening all the time, if you see what I'm saying. We question each other, right? We always ask each other the same question, meaning every time we question each other, it's always the same question. We're always questioning each other all the time. It's just where you put the reH.
On relative clauses:
E.T.: Are headless relative clauses possible as the sentence Dajatlhbogh vIyajlaHbe' _I cannot understand what you are saying_ from Star Trek: Klingon suggests? [A headless relative clause in which the antecedent/head noun is not explicitly stated, i.e. Dajatlhbogh vIyajlaHbe' instead of f.ex. mu' Dajatlhbogh vIyajlaHbe' _I cannot understand the word you are saying_]
MO: Yeah, obviously, because there it was, there was the example. Yeah, it's possible. What it is, it's an example of where you can leave the noun or the pronoun out, like you can. So as you said, the missing head could be mu', but it could be a pronoun. It could be ghaH or 'oH, depending on obviously what the sentence is about, or even 'e', but it's left out. So, it's not headless, it's a hidden head or something like that.
On prefixes:
E.T.: The combinations "I-us", "you(sg.)-you(pl.)" etc. lack a prefix. How is this handled?
TKD (4.1.1. Basic prefixes) says: "The chart notes subject-object combinations which cannot be expressed with the Klingon verb prefix system. For such meanings, suffixes (section 4.2.1) and/or pronouns (section 5.1) must be used."
In what way are pronouns used for these situations? Can we say e.g. maH Qan jIH _I protect us_? Is it correct to use no prefix, or should we still use some prefix? If we use no prefix, that is specifically not the null prefix, correct?
If it is okay to use a construct like this, is it just colloquial speech or can it be used in official texts too?
MO: OK, the answer is yes, you can do exactly what the example was, which was maH on jIH. That's fine. No prefixes are used. If it's imperative, then prefixes are used because you need something to mark the imperative. So if you said something like, tlhIH yIQan which means as a command, _Protect all of you_. Presumably you're talking to a group of yous, a group of people, pointing out one of them. You protect all of you if you said something like that, that's how you would do it. You would use the imperative prefix associated with no object in these kinds of constructions. [...]
You know, when the subject and the object are the same, obviously, then use the -'egh and the -chuq, like before, like always.
There was the question about, is the absence of the prefix not the same thing as the null prefix? Is that right? Is that what the question was?
E.T.: Yeah, the question was: "If we use no prefix that is specifically not the null prefix, correct?"
MO: Yeah, I don't understand that question. You don't use a prefix, whether you wanna call that null or you don't use a prefix, doesn't make a difference. In the chart, there's a difference. In the chart, it's pointing out that the way to say something is by no prefix, that's the zero. And the hyphen or the dash or something means that it doesn't fit into the chart, but in both cases, it's the absence of prefix. And these kinds of constructions obviously are rare, they don't come up all that often, but they're perfectly fine.
Word meaning clarifications: ghIm
E.T.: Could you clarify the meaning of ghIm? The gloss - exile - seems to contradict the explanation of using it with taQbang etc. Can it be used in the sense of "The city exiled him as punishment"?
MO: Yes. So probably, you know, maybe that's the only example. This was with taQbang or something like that. But it's a much more general usage. Probably the more common usage is the exile from the city or something like that. But yeah, both meanings. So maybe it should be expanded. Maybe, you know, the official English definition or something should include words like banish and deport.
qunI'/wot DelwI'
E.T.: What is the difference between a qunI' and a wot DelwI', if there is one?
MO: It's just a matter of technicality. qunI' is a Klingon grammarians' technical term that applies only to those particular words in that particular class of adverbial things in Klingon, whereas wot DelwI' is a more general term that can be used for lots of different languages, including Klingon. It's just not the technical list of terms for Klingon usage, but they're both fine for Klingon. For non-Klingon, you probably wouldn't use qunI'.
E.T.: So it would be correct to say that every qunI' is a wot DelwI', but not the other way around.
MO: Right. Well, within Klingon maybe, but more generally speaking, correct.
wot tam
E.T.: (Follow-up from previous question) Does the term wot tam describe Klingon verbs that can be used adjectivally? And if yes, does that mean we can call them "stative verbs" in English?
MO: It does refer to verbs that can be used adjectivally, yes. And as far as I'm concerned, you can call them whatever you want in English. But wot tam is what they're called in Klingon. Yeah, the word stative verb in English could include things like "taste", like "it tastes bitter", or "have", like "I have a car", which are not adjectival. So it's a broader usage generally in English, but I'm not concerned about what you call it in English. I'm concerned about what you call it in Klingon.
E.T.: And in Klingon it is wot tam or can be wot tam.
MO: Yeah.
chotmang
E.T.: Does chotmang refer specifically to the surprise killing of a public/political figure, like the English word "assassination" does? Or is anyone who is the object of chot automatically the victim of chotmang?
MO: No, it's more like it has to be a political or public figure or something like that to be chotmang. A political figure could be the object of chot and the robbery victim could be the object of chot but only the political figure, you would associate with chotmang. It does have to be a political figure some kind of notoriety, some kind of prominence.
E.T.: Normal people are not the victim of chotmang.
MO: Right a robbery victim probably wouldn't be, you know, the victims of the Jack the Ripper were not.
From the general Q&A: On country names:
Sonya': Is it true that you can transliterate the names of Earth countries, however you like in Klingon, because silly Earth politics don't really matter to Klingons?
MO: I would say yes and no, in conversation. Sure, if whoever you're talking to knows what you're talking about, that's fine. If you're going to compile the Klingon Atlas of Earth, then there's probably a standard way of doing it.
cha'na: I think that was probably born out of... I know that Sonya' has had a slight disagreement with the transliteration of Russia as raSya' and prefers roSI'ya, but I won't ask you to comment on that.
MO: It depends on what the Klingons heard first and how they misconstrued it.
E.T.: So Maltz won't protest if I start using 'alapa for Scotland?
MO: Oh, that's fine. No one will know what you're talking about. But yeah, that's fine. I mean, people will know what you're talking about. That one we went around, Maltz and I went around in circles a lot, the names of the British lands. Because, you know, Scotland is an official name and it's the same for Wales and so on.
On sound symbolism:
E.T.: Is the breaking of sound symbolism in the pairs tIn/mach or -vam/-vetlh on purpose?
MO: Yes. And it's not breaking. It's a different sound symbolism, because Klingons are different.
On pronunciation:
cha'na: Would you say that the Klingon, like the sound represented by the letter O is a diphthong like in English, like O, that kind of goes more into an U at the end?
MO: It's not. It's a more pure O if you want to call it that, [o]. However, you know, if you diphthongise it like in English, no one's going to misunderstand you, or anything like that, which is why there's no words, no syllables with O-W or U-W, because if you do it with the U at the end, or if you don't, it's still fine. You might have a little bit of a Terran accent.
E.T.: If I may, as a follow up to that: There's been some discussion about whether the O in Klingon should be the more closed [o] or the more open [ɔ]..
MO: It is the closed one. [...] Yeah, I realised, you know, when we've gotten together with non-North American speakers of English, all these kinds of questions come up that North American English speakers are just oblivious to.
On Klingon anatomy and inherent plurals:
Sonya': Is the word 'InSep an inherent plural given Klingon anatomy?
MO: No. No, it's not.
On talking Klingon with Marc:
Vortarulo: Do you sometimes wish you could simply speak and practice Klingon with other speakers without everybody, everyone taking notes on your precise wording?
MO: Yeah, you may have noticed that in public, I don't speak Klingon very often. And one of the reasons for that is because if I do, and if I make a mistake, it suddenly becomes canon, apparently, and then I've screwed everything up. And I don't want to do that. That's why I want to run everything by Maltz first.
Vortarulo: And the follow up question, do you have any chances where you do speak Klingon in a conversation?
MO: Do I have any chances? There's lots of chances. Do I do it? Not really. That hasn't come up all that often. In writing, somewhat, but not in talking. All right.
E.T.: Can we get you to join Klingon Conversations if we promise not to take notes?
MO: You got me to answer these questions. Maybe, maybe. Yeah, I don't believe you for a second that you're not going to take notes or record it.
On a more general note, Maltz does not receive fan mail, because the basement has no zip code, but if you sent some to Marc, he will forward it. Cheers, E.T.