Thank you for your quick reply! SuStel:

-choH is used to indicate a change of state occurring. Without -choH (or a verb whose meaning includes the concept of a change), no change of state occurs.

(...)

choQuchmoH I am happy, and it's because of you. choQuchchoHmoH You make me go from unhappy to happy.

I think I understand what you mean. If we want to say that someone teaches somebody else Klingon grammar (as a general fact), we could say: *ghaHvaD tlhIngan Hol pab ghojmoH* But if I want to say that someone couldn't understand the Klingon grammar, but with someone else's help she or he can now understand, we could say: *ghaHvaD tlhIngan Hol pab ghojchoHmoH* However, I still cannot understand this other canon example: *DaH jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH*. Shouldn't it be here *vISay'nISchoHmoH*? I'm afraid I'm not really understanding it yet...

On 11/15/2021 5:14 PM, Will Martin wrote:

This is an American joke. A woman who gets asked out on a date and doesn’t want to go with that person might say, “I can’t go to the dance with you. I need to wash my hair.”

In other words, it is such a ridiculous reason to not go to a dance, it’s obvious that the REAL reason is, you don’t want to go to the dance with the person who asked you.

This fits SuStel’s interpretation because it doesn’t matter whether the hair is clean or dirty. Maybe there’s a change from being dirty. Maybe there isn’t. You need to wash it so you don’t have to go out with the person who asked you. It’s even better if you imply that washing it would not cause it to be any cleaner than it already is.

That's not the reason. *vISay'moH *The cause of my hair being in a clean state is me. *vISay'choHmoH *The cause of my hair going from an unclean state to a clean state is me. *vISay'nISmoH *The cause of my hair being in a clean state is me. I have a need to cause this. *vISay'nISchoHmoH *The cause of my hair going from an unclean state to a clean state is me. I have a need to cause this. *DaH jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH *I now have a need to be the cause of my hair being in a clean state. It has nothing to do with offering insincere explanations. It is simply not important to the speaker to express a change of state of his hair. Needing to be the cause of his hair's cleanliness is all that matters. If someone you genuinely wanted to be with asked you out to dinner, but you actually had scheduled a shampoo at this time, you could say this sentence completely sincerely, and you wouldn't need *-choH.* The point is not to express a change in cleanliness; the point is only to express that you're engaged to be the cause of cleanliness. Now, if my son were to get mud all over his hair, I might tell him, *DaH jIblIj yISay'choHmoH*/Get your hair clean now!/ Here, the change of state of his hair is very much the point of what I'm expressing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 11/16/2021 8:05 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

Thanks to both of you for your replies! I still have a couple of questions:

1. I think the fact that I'm not an English native speaker is making this point a bit more difficult to me than it already is. If I understand it right, *vISay'nISmoH* means something like *I need to do something in order to keep the state of cleanliness of my hair*, i.e., *I need to do something that causes my hair to stay in a clean state*, so that's something we probably wouldn't say if our hair were really dirty? Maybe we're rather talking about *hair care* in a general sense?

Lacking *-choH* does not mean that a change of state does not take place; it simply means you're not expressing one. *Say'moH* doesn't mean /maintain being clean,/ although it might be used for that. It means the subject is the cause of being clean.

2. But if I want to cook and my hands are dirty, then the right thing to say would be: *vISay'nISchoHmoH*, wouldn't it?

I'd probably say it that way, yes. *Say'nISmoH* means you need to be the cause of being clean. *Say'nISchoHmoH* means you need to be the cause of becoming clean. It's the difference between /being/ and /becoming./

3. And if we want to say something like *embellish*? This word can mean either going from ugly to beautiful or from beautiful to more beautiful. How could we account for this difference in Klingon?

In the right context, going from not-beautiful to beautiful could be expressed with *'IHchoHmoH.* If you just said *'IHmoH,* then the subject is the cause of the beauty but hasn't necessarily changed anything during the expression. Going from beautiful to more beautiful? Probably *'IHqu'choHmoH.*

4. I'm afraid now I have again problems with this sentence: *yIbItHa'qu''eghmoH*. Shouldn't we use here *-choH*, since we are commanding someone to be the cause of her / his *changing* state from nervous to relaxed?

It's commanding you to be the cause of your being calm. /Cause yourself to be in a calm state/ instead of /Cause yourself to change to a calm state./ It's focusing on the end result, not the moment of change. We don't usually make this distinction in English, since commanding someone to /be/ something can mean to change to some state or to maintain some state. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 11/16/2021 11:36 AM, Will Martin wrote:

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.

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.

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 *Say'moH* and *Say'choHmoH* 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.

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.

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. Using *-pu'* or *-ta'* 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 /perfective./ Using *-taH* or *-lI'* means your viewpoint is zoomed into the action so that it extends before and after your local viewpoint's "horizon." This is known as /continuous/ or /progressive./ 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 /(Now I chop the wood, now I pile it up),/ general truths /(The pen is blue),/ states /(I am happy), /and other things. The only way I can leave off an aspect suffix is to describe an action as non-perfective and non-continuous. 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.

If expressing humility before a greater power authority is important, leaving out Type 8 could be fatal, but it is otherwise optional.

Type 8 is said to be /always/ optional. Adding it /will/ express humility, or at least a recognition of a higher authority, but your situation would already have to be fatal where adding *-neS* would tip the balance back in your favor.

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,

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.

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}).

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,

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 /Sit down!/, you pretty much need to say *yIba'choH.* Saying *yIba'* means /Be in a seated position!/ which, while it will get the point across, does not express the same concept as the original. In English, an imperative /be!/ means /become!/ or /remain!,/ which concepts require Klingon suffixes like *-choH* and *-taH.*

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.

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. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 11/17/2021 9:49 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

Thanks again to both of you for the detailed discussion! I will try to summerize it (for beginners like me:-) Please tell me if I'm right:

1. We can use *-moH* or *-choHmoH* depending on wether we want to express or focus on the end result (*-moH*) or the change (*-choHmoH*) someone or something is causing.

I wasn't stating a general rule; I was analyzing a specific sentence. Not all verbs will see a difference between an end result or a change. For instance, if I say *tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH*/I teach Klingon,/ I'm not focusing on an end result; I am just talking about an existing action. If I say *tlhIngan Hol vIghojchoHmoH* /I start teaching Klingon,/ I am talking about the beginning of an action. Don't look for a formulaic interpretation of combinations of suffixes. Analyze each verb as you find it.

If someone wants to cook and her / his hands are really dirty, I'll probably be interested on emphasize that I want her / his hands to*become* clean, so I'll likely use *-choHmoH*. If I just recommend someone to be*generally* clean, I'll likely use *-moH*.

Or if you want to recommend someone maintain a regular cleaning regimen (*Hoch jaj nuHlIj yISay'moH*/Clean your weapon every day/). Or if you just want to explain how something becomes clean without describing the transition of going from dirty to clean (*raS DaSay'moHmeH, taSvam yIlo'*/Use this solution to clean the table/). There are lots of uses for *-moH* with or without *-choH,* and you have to figure them out as needed. Don't try to come up with a simple formula to follow. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

Voragh:

I may have lost a post or two from this thread so apologies for any repetition, but here are Okrand’s examples of verbs with {-choHmoH}:

No need to apologize, Voragh, your canon wisdom is always welcome! Thank you! SuStel:

Yes, it seems generally right to me. Use *-choH* when you want to describe an action changing one state into another, not just if you describe an action that might involve a change of state at some point that you're not talking about. When you say *jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH,* the washing you're talking about logically implies a change of state from unclean to clean, but the action you're trying to depict isn't the change of state; it's the act of washing.

Thank you for taking the time to answer!

On 11/17/2021 10:59 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

And I hope I don't bother you, but could you please tell me just briefly wether what I said under points 2-4 is*generally* right? You don't have to go into detail, I would just like to know that I'm not entirely mistaken. But if you don't feel like answering, no problem! I perfectly understand it!

Yes, it seems generally right to me. Use *-choH* when you want to describe an action changing one state into another, not just if you describe an action that might involve a change of state at some point that you're not talking about. When you say *jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH,* the washing you're talking about logically implies a change of state from unclean to clean, but the action you're trying to depict isn't the change of state; it's the act of washing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name