[Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon

[David Trimboli]

More and more, the new canon we see appears to break rules. I believe 
that some of it is purely error, mostly the forgotten rules of no Type 
5s on the first noun of a noun-noun, net instead of 'e', and Type 7 on 
the second verb of a sentence-as-object. However, there are some "rules" 
that I am beginning to question.

Verbs as nouns

These keep showing up. "It is not known if all verbs can be used as 
nouns," says the TKD Addendum, and we know that {tlhutlh} can never be a 
noun, but what if most verbs can indeed be used as nouns—at least, the 
ones that seem to have obvious meanings as nouns?

Variable semantics

The semantic roles of subjects and objects in Klingon seem to change all 
the time. I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you {mev}. Sometimes 
we're given explicit instructions on how to use a verb, but most of the 
time we rely on the semantics of the English translation. Suppose 
Klingon semantics aren't so strict? Suppose you can use any semantic 
role you like as subject or object, so long as context makes it clear 
what you mean? {jIDIng} "I spin," {gho vIDIng} "I spin the circle," {gho 
vIDIngmoH} "I spin the circle." (The difference between the latter two 
is an explicit indication ({-moH}) that the subject is the agent, as 
opposed to, say, an instrument or a force.

Other?

There may be other examples of "loose grammar" that I haven't thought 
of. I'm not sure whether to take these as signs that Okrand can't keep 
the whole thing in his head and makes LOTS of mistakes, or whether 
Klingon is supposed to be more "yeah, whatever" than we give it credit 
for. Remember the rigor their grammarians give to parts of speech...

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/