Interview with Marc Okrand

Trying to pin Mare Okrand down for an interview is almost as difficult as going after Maltz himself. The following exchange began as a discussion between Lawrence Schoen and Will Martin back in April, and resulted in a compelling list of thirteen questions. This list was presented to Okrand during a convention in May. Months passed before Okrand's and Martin's respective schedules coincided. Finally, over a dinner in mid--November, they were able to meet and converse. Maltz was nowhere in sight.

WM: The one area that Klingonists have the most arguments about that we can't resolve is transitivity of verbs. Are there any guidelines?

MO: I would not say there are any guidelines. Some verbs can take one noun. Some take two. And it does not necessarily fall the way that English falls. The way the dictionary is put together is not really helpful the way the definitions are written.

WM: Right. Like {Dub} -- "improve."

MO: Right, although now we know from usage. The best way to know this is from usage because when I made the dictionary, frankly, it never occurred to me to put transitive or intransitive or whether that was a relevant term in the first place. Usage is the way to go. There are some verbs that I've used that by the one or two word definition in the dictionary are intransitive and I've used them transitively. It makes it more interesting, making Klingon more different from English. For example, I've used the word {yIn} transitively. "You live a Klingon life." That's perfectly acceptable in Klingon. It's perfectly acceptable in English, too, but it is not obvious from the short definition in the dictionary that that would be an okay thing to do. So you are right. You can't tell just by looking at the definition, unless we went through and said, "Okay, this one you do this way and that one you do that way..." The other tricky thing is some people say you can put any prefix on any verb. I suppose that you can, but just because you can doesn't mean that you should. It doesn't mean that if you did that it would be understood by everybody the way that you intended. But I think it's fair to say that however it works, it is not necessarily the way English works. Just because the English definition is X doesn't mean that the Klingon word has to work the same way. The best way to deal with all this is to examine usage...

WM: ...some of which we have to wait for.

MO: Yes. That's partly because Maltz doesn't want to paint me into a corner.

WM: I see that you need to strike a balance between restricting yourself by making unnecessary claims about the language that do not ultimately prove to be accurate and giving people enough information, especially about particular verbs that are problematic so that people can feel more confident about what they are doing with the language. I think about verbs like {vIH} -- "move, be in motion," which, depending on which way you see it, you could believe that the word "move" is there just to help you look it up.

MO: A lot of the definitions are there just to help you look them up. We're not just talking about transitivity. In general a lot of things are there because if I'm looking for a word in Klingon, I've got to have an English tag so I can find it. The best definition might not be a good tag. Once you find the tag, then you can hopefully find the better definition.

WM: That makes sense with {vIH} in particular because "be in motion" is not necessarily something that you could look up. But "move" would.

MO: Right.

WM: People have interpreted that to mean both "move" and "be in motion."

MO: I'll tell you what the intent was. The intent was "be in motion."

WM: So if I were to say, "I move this glass," it would be {HIvje'vam vIvIHmoH}.

MO: Right. Though, again, down the road... What I've learned is to never say never.

WM: One might eventually find oneself having used it without {--moH}.

MO: Right. But you can say, "Usually..."

WM: Okay, then in terms of "usually" could you address the best use of {tlhob}?

MO: What I intended to do with {tlhob}, though not necessarily what I intended to do with {tlhob} when I first wrote the dictionary... The language has evolved from what I set out to do for the movie to what I set out to do for the dictionary to what I set out to do for... It keeps changing. But what I wanted to do with {tlhob} and {ghel} is to distinguish between two different meanings for the English verb "ask." There are two "ask's." There's the "ask" where you ask a question and there's "ask" where you make a request. I wanted it to be two different verbs, though apparently there are times when the "request" verb is used to ask a question as well. \[\<PK>: {lutlhob naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?}] So maybe the way it works is that {ghel} can ask a question and only ask a question and the other one can mean that and is also use to request or plead or something like that.

WM: So maybe {tlhob} can be used more broadly, but {ghel} remains the question--asking verb?

MO: Yes, that’s the way I see it. But remember, there can be overlap. Sometimes people use {tlhob} in a situation where {ghel} might seem more appropriate. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong—it just reflects nuance or speaker choice.

WM: And that's part of what makes the language feel alive, right? That kind of fluidity?

MO: Exactly. Languages change and adapt. Klingon isn’t static. It grows with its speakers.

WM: So, are there any other pairs of verbs like {tlhob} and {ghel} where English has one word, but Klingon has more than one?

MO: Certainly. Take {ja'} and {QIj}. Both can be translated as "tell" or "explain," depending on context. But there's a subtle difference. {ja'} is more about conveying information or reporting, while {QIj} is explaining something in detail, maybe clarifying.

WM: So one is more direct, the other more descriptive?

MO: That's a good way to put it. And it’s important for learners to see that distinction, even though English might just say "tell" for both.

WM: That reminds me of how some learners expect one--to--one translations and get frustrated.

MO: Right. It’s a trap. No language works that way, really. But it’s especially noticeable in Klingon because it was created with a very different mindset from English.