WM: Two other verbs that are interesting in terms of whether you would use vI- or jI- are Sum and Hop. Like raS vISum or raS vIHop. [[p.10]]

MO: Okay. This opens up a whole new issue. You see, there's this thing called "deixis." This is the idea that an utterance is made at a specific time and place, and certain words or grammatical elements are interpreted correctly only by reference to that time and place. So the same word may refer to a different real-world thing depending on who's speaking, where, when, and so on. Like in the statement "I am here," where is "here?" It has to do with where you are when you make the statement. And who is "I?" "I" is Marc if I say it; it's Will if you do.

WM: And when somebody writes that on a blackboard and then walks away. It was true when it was written, but later...

MO: Yes. It's like the sign in a store window that says "Back in one hour." If there's no indication of when the sign was put up, how do you know how long to wait? It's the same in regular conversation. You don't speak in a vacuum. There are elements in the speech situation to let us interpret utterances correctly. Usually, anyway.

MO: Using the verbs Sum and Hop involves this concept.

WM: So I could not say raSvam vISum to say, "I am near the table."

MO: No. You'd just say Sum raS. The verb Sum implies that the speaker is the one the subject is near at the time of speaking.

Hop jabwI'. The waiter is far right now.

WM: Well, that resolves the conflict otherwise created if they could take objects. It keeps them stative, so you can say, HIvje' Sum yItlhap.

MO: Yes.

WM: Otherwise, they'd be the only verbs we'd sometimes use as adjectives and other times use transitively.

MO: Take an object. Yes.

WM: So, could that deictic anchor be shifted by using an indirect object? Like if I wanted to say, "You are near the table," could I say SoHvaD Sum raS?

MO: No. You'd use -Daq: SoHDaq Sum raS. This throws the orientation away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener (marked, stated: "at you, where you are"). But you don't always need to state this overtly. Context is critical. For example:

qagh largh SuvwI' ghung. Sum qagh 'e' Sov. The hungry warrior smells the gagh. He/she knows the gagh is nearby. [[p.11]]

The only interpretation of this (absent other information) is that the warrior knows the gagh is near the warrior, not the warrior knows the gagh is near the speaker of the sentences. If context isn't clear, you can clarify:

Question: Sum'a' raS? Is the table near (me)? (Am I near the table?)

Answer: HIja'. Sum raS. Yes. The table is near (you). or Answer: ghobe'. jIHDaq Sum raS. No. The table is near me.

WM: And could I say maSumchuq?

MO: No. You'd just say bISum or SuSum. If you haven't, in the course of the conversation, set things up otherwise, it's assumed that the event being talked about is taking place where the speaker is. In fact, jISum alone probably would make no everyday sense to a Klingon. "I am near me." But it does have an idiomatic philosophical sense, something like "I'm in touch with my inner self" (but in a Klingon sort of way, of course).