Glue words, adjectives, "active" speech ..and the future
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". But there's much more to klingon than the use of verbs which causes it to be an "active" language. 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. 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-exc... 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. 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.a... 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. 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.. Now, all the above prove that there are more under the hood of klingon than just the classic overused argument of "because klingon relies on verbs it is action oriented". And the more someone studies klingon, the more he comes to admire the skill of 'oqranD, his true genius, and his talent in creating such a language. For this reason, when 'oqranD eventually retires, there's noone, *noone* who can really take over. Whoever would accept such a role, the only thing he/she/they would actually achieve, is demonstrating his/her/their ineptitude when his/her/their work would unavoidably compare to okrand's. But luckily, when that day comes, each one of us will choose if he'll blindly follow. ~ Qa'yIn
On 6/22/2020 10:20 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
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-exc...
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.a...
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
SuStel:
The grammar of Klingon is quite simplified compared to English
Indeed, but isn't this the genius of klingon ? This reminds me of a phrase of bruce lee, which was something like: "as time passes, the master instead of adding things to his art, he's rather removing things from it". I think that one of the most impressive attributes of klingon is that in all its' simplicity it brings shame to natural languages, being able to express almost everything, without the complexity of a natural language. This is the true genius of okrand. He created a language, which in its wonderful lack of complexity, is able to express a billion things. ~ Qa'yIn
On 6/22/2020 11:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
The grammar of Klingon is quite simplified compared to English Indeed, but isn't this the genius of klingon ?
Eh... I don't know if this was genius instead of mere simplicity. It was a language written to be a coffee-table novelty and to produce a few lines of verisimilitudinous language for a movie. I don't think what you perceive of as elegance was really meant to be. It happens to appeal to your tastes — and mine. But I don't think Okrand actually imagined he was inventing something of exquisite aesthetics. If anything, I think he was thought he was doing the opposite, and the joke was that Klingons were so alien their aesthetic sensibilities were just unfathomable. I think Okrand's subsequent translations show that he DOES value simpler sentences with fewer "glue words," but I don't think this design feature was driven by his desire for elegance in the language. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Most people are not very acquainted with Native American languages. Okrand is. A common feature of Native American languages is this construction of words out of elemental affixes. While this exists in English, it’s not nearly as common as the use of what are being called “glue words” here, and I’d previously heard called “helper words”. In the 1920s, Cherokee had a word for “automobile” built out of elements that were part of the language before they were exposed to automobiles. Those were the days of prominent headlights, so the word for automobile was “It stares”. As headlights became less prominent, the word changed to “It moves around on rubber cushions”. Again, it wasn’t really a new word. It was a new combination of affixes applied to “it”. Likely, Okrand’s familiarity with this very much not English feature of Native American languages combined with his need to build a large vocabulary quickly by making one word expandable in a fixed set of ways. Combine that with wanting something also not English in style. The genius I see here is Okrand’s ability to come up with affixes as versatile as these. As quickly as he threw the language together, there aren’t a lot of obvious gaps that should have been filled by affixes he didn’t come up with in the very first edition of the Klingon Dictionary. More than anything else about the language, that’s the thing I find awe inspiring. How could he do that without crippling the language far worse that Klingon now is? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 22, 2020, at 11:55 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/22/2020 11:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
The grammar of Klingon is quite simplified compared to English Indeed, but isn't this the genius of klingon ? Eh... I don't know if this was genius instead of mere simplicity. It was a language written to be a coffee-table novelty and to produce a few lines of verisimilitudinous language for a movie. I don't think what you perceive of as elegance was really meant to be. It happens to appeal to your tastes — and mine. But I don't think Okrand actually imagined he was inventing something of exquisite aesthetics. If anything, I think he was thought he was doing the opposite, and the joke was that Klingons were so alien their aesthetic sensibilities were just unfathomable.
I think Okrand's subsequent translations show that he DOES value simpler sentences with fewer "glue words," but I don't think this design feature was driven by his desire for elegance in the language.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
The genius I see here is Okrand’s ability to come up with affixes as versatile as these.
Indeed.. I remember.. When I first read tkd I thought "it's impossible for someone to be able to express himself by using just these prefixes/suffixes". Only to realize later that indeed, there were no gaps or omissions; only to realize later that indeed everything needed was already there. One can only admire the magnitude of Okrand's ability to create. And as I wrote earlier, there's noone in the community who can even think that he can compare to Okrand. For someone to think that he/she is in the position to continue Okrand's work, wouldn't just be arrogance; it would be hubris. Unless of course the goal would be, to "sell" whatever kind of inferior klingon by-product his/her mind would finally put together, to beginners on facebook, a task easily accomplished.. ~ Qa'yIn
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:50 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
The genius I see here is Okrand’s ability to come up with affixes as versatile as these. As quickly as he threw the language together, there aren’t a lot of obvious gaps that should have been filled by affixes he didn’t come up with in the very first edition of the Klingon Dictionary. More than anything else about the language, that’s the thing I find awe inspiring.
Well, not all the affixes are versatile. I don't think *-beH* has been used in canon since the example sentences in TKD. The selection of affixes works just fine as it is, but there are tons of ways that the language could have gone differently. There are concepts that some languages include as affixes but Klingon doesn't, which it expresses through other means. I think the elegance and versatility of Klingon have less to do with the initial design itself, but more to do with the fact that Okrand has been willing to work on it for thirty years to flesh it out. *wa' vatlhwI' pIlpu'ghach HutmaH Hut vatlhwI' SuynIj je yugh wIgh mojpu'ghach.*
participants (4)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin