Hol Sarmey QeD QulwI' ghItlh: A typological analysis of Klingon A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Linguistics in the University of Canterbury by Nikita Sutrave University of Canterbury 2017 Table of Contents Abstract ……………............................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................. ii Abbreviations used…………………………………………………………………………….………iii 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Proposed word order typologies ...................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Specific features discussed in Analysis ......................................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Causatives……………………………………………………………………………………….18 2.2.2 Topic-focus……………………………………………………………………………………...20 3 Data collection ................................................................................................................................ 23 3.1 Data sources.................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.1 The Klingon Dictionary and Klingon for Galactic Traveler........................................................23 3.1.2 Learn Klingon...............................................................................................................................23 3.1.3 The Klingon Hamlet……………………………………………………………………………..24 3.1.4 HolQeD………………………………………………………………………………...………..25 3.2 Methodology .........................................................................................................………………..27 4 Analysis ................................................................................................................................ ………28 4.1 Vennemann ............................................................................................………………………….28 4.2 Hixkaryana and Klingon- A comparison with universals and other OV languages ……………...37 4.3 Topic-focus structure ..........................................................................................…………………49 4.3.1 Topic-comment structure and topic-prominence in Klingon……………………………………49 4.3.2 Topic/Focus marking……………………………………………………………………………56 4.4 Causative constructions and the marking of secondary agent…………………………………….66 4.5 Negation in Klingon………………………………………………………………………………72 4.6 Comparatives and Superlatives……………………………………………………………………77 5 Discussion .............................................................................................................. ………………...79 5.1 Other typologies ................................................................………………………………………..79 5.1.1 Keenan’s selected generalisations………………………………………………………………79 5.1.2 The topic-comment structure and VS-SV classification………………………………………...81 5.1.3Does Klingon have properties that are intermediate between OV and VO languages?................85 5.2 Overall findings ....................................................... ……………………………………………...90 6 Concluding remarks.........................................................................................................................92 6.1 Limitations of the study …………………………………………………………………………..92 6.2 Scope for future research………………………………………………………………………….92 References ........................................................................................................................................... 94 Abstract Klingon is a constructed language initially created solely for entertainment purposes by the linguist Dr. Marc Okrand. Klingon plays an important part in the popular science fiction franchise Star Trek as the language spoken by the militant Klingon race. This language has OVS (Object-Verb-Subject) as the basic word order, something that is rarely found in natural languages. On the topic of how he created Klingon, Okrand has mentioned that he tried his utmost to make Klingon as different from other languages as possible. The goal of this thesis is to find out how ‘unique’ the features of Klingon really are. I use data obtained from various sources such as the Klingon Dictionary and actual speakers of Klingon and compare it to the universals that are proposed for languages with similar word order. Consulting the speakers was a particularly important here as there are no native speakers of Klingon, and there are very few people who can even speak it fluently. For most of my thesis, I use generalisations based on the OV-VO typology. While I examine some general principles from works like Vennemann (1973), I also look at some typological generalisations about topic and focus, causative constructions, negation and comparative/superlative constructions in Klingon. I compare the characteristics of Klingon to those found in another OVS languages like Hixkaryana as well as ‘consistently OV’ languages like Japanese and Korean. I also mention briefly some typologies based on constituents other than the relative position of verb and object such as the VS-SV distinction and universals for subject-final languages, but these typologies fail to clearly answer the question of whether Klingon can be considered as a typical subject-final language or verb- intermediate language. This is because the generalisations based on subject-final languages turned out to actually mostly be about verb-initial languages, and in case of other typologies, Klingon could only partially answer the questions posed. Despite discovering several interesting syntactic properties, I concluded that even though Klingon seems to have some features that are rarely found in other OV languages, it actually is very consistent with most of the generalisations I have used to test its OV nature. Thus, despite the many interesting features discovered, I could say that Klingon indeed is a ‘consistently OV language’. My study also highlights some of the challenges associated with collecting data on Klingon as a relatively new language, especially given the occasional differences between the interpretation of an ambiguous rule by the speakers as opposed to what Dr. Okrand actually intended. I also talk about the ever-growing vocabulary and constantly evolving grammar rules in Klingon that could potentially make some parts of my thesis slightly outdated in just a few years. i Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Heidi Quinn, for her support and encouragement that led me to choose this rather unusual topic for my thesis. I appreciate all the help she gave me whenever I was stuck, no matter how busy she was. Her detailed feedback and also her support when I was worried that I might never finish my thesis were invaluable to my finally finishing the thesis. Within the UC Linguistics department, i. Thank you to all the members of UC’s Linguistics Department, particularly the members of the postgrad syntax group, who have offered their guidance and support whenever I needed it. I couldn’t have found a better, more supportive environment than this. ii. I thank Dr. Kevin Watson, the Head of Linguistics department in UC, for his help in organising my mess into something that actually started to resemble a thesis afterwards. iii. Also, I am grateful to Jacq Jones, who introduced me to Joe Windsor and thus was indirectly instrumental in my gaining access to actual experts in Klingon. Many thanks to Joe Windsor from the University of Calgary for telling me about this Facebook group dedicated solely to the Klingon language that just might help me. I am immensely grateful to the members of the Learn Klingon facebook group, especially Alan Anderson, Andrew Miller, Brad Wilson, Chris Lipscombe, David Trimboli, David Yonge-Mallo, Doug Henning, Ed Bailey, Everett Flores, Felix Malmenbeck, Jeremy Cowan, John Harness, Lieven L. Litaer, and Robyn Stewart, for taking the time to answer my questions and responding whenever I needed a sentence translated. Discussing various aspects of Klingon syntax had never been more exciting and fun than when I was doing it within the group. Also, special thanks to Andrew Miller for helping me come up with the title of the thesis. I thank my family for all the love and support, be it through phone-calls, Skype conversations or financial support. You have always been there cheering me on for all the major events in my life. I couldn’t have come so far without you. Finally, I would like to thank my room-mates and friends, both here and back home, for being there and listening to me vent and giving me hugs and cookies (thanks, Stephen!) whenever I was stressed and homesick. ii Abbreviations used. Abbreviations used: I 1st person II 2nd person III 3rd person I+III 3rd person exclusive ALT alternative CAUS causative COLL collective COMPL completive CONT continuous DIST.PAST distant past EMP emphasis HSY hearsay IMP imperative IMM.PAST immediate past INCL inclusive INTENS intensifier INTR interrogative IO Indirect object IS Indefinite subject LOC locative MSF misfortune NEG negation iii O object/direct object ORD ordinal number marker PERF perfective REFL reflexive REL relativiser