Re: Klingon grammar

On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:15:49PM -0500, Ph. D. wrote:
> Okrand's book _The Klingon Dictionary_ seems
> to have the only discussion of grammar. But it's
> very basic. It doesn't get into complex sentences
> (relative clauses, etc.) Since there are two groups
> translating the bible into Klingon and others
> translating Shakespeare, I would assume a more
> complete grammar has been developed. But I'm
> not aware of any books with a more complete
> grammar.
Nope; those groups are making use of the grammar as laid
out in TKD.  There have been some clarifications to it in other books
and interviews with Dr. Okrand, but no additions to the grammar itself,
only to vocabulary.  Klingon grammar generally eschews complexity and
therefore arguably doesn't need a deeper treatment (though perhaps a better
one could be written); however, it *does* have relative clauses, and they
are covered in the original TKD.  Look up the verbal suffix -bogh.

> Dumb romanization.
reH jIHvaD qaqbe' SoHvaD qaqbogh Doch'e'.  (A rough Klingon rendering of
"de gustibus non disputandum", literally "that which is preferable to you
is not always preferable to me".  Hey, look!  A relative clause! :))

> I assume it's to make it look "alien,"
Nope; see earlier answers in this thread.

-Mark

Reply