[tlhIngan Hol] SuStel please tell me, I need to know..

[André Müller]

*ja'chuqghachraj vIlaDtaHvIS jIghel vIneHchoH je, 'ach pab bopmo' DIvI' Hol
vIqaq. toH...*

SuStel, you used *-qu'* on *jatlh* to express not intensity of the action
or state the verb is describing (e.g. "speak a lot" or "speak loudly" or
"speak really well" which would have been possible interpretations for me),
but as an emphasis marker, like SPEAKING (as opposed to anything else),
sort of like topicalizing a verb.

Is there canonical evidence for this usage? I'm currently in Myanmar and
didn't bring my TKD, so I can't check it easily now. But this usage strikes
me as odd. Usually so-called "intensifiers" cannot do this in languages,
but I don't know how Okrand described *-qu'* exactly.

*mIyamavo' qavan*,
- André

P.S.: *Do'Ha' naQbe' Sindarin Hol Quenya Hol je. jIQochbe'. Esperanto Hol
tlhIngan Hol je vIjatlhlaH. 'opleS latlh Hol 'oghlu'ta'bogh vIghojchugh,
vaj Na'vi Hol vIwIv. muvuQqu' pabDaj! *

On 31 Jul 2017 21:06, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 7/31/2017 10:20 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> SuStel:
>
> jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS
>
> jIH:
>
> Or is it rather "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more complete than quenya" ?
>
> SuStel
>
> My intention was is the last one
>
> Perhaps the reason of my confusion, becomes clearer now. If instead of
> {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS}, we had
> {jatlhqu'lu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS} meaning "in
> order for someone to speak..", then I could have understood the
> meaning better. Reading the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya
> naQ puS} and understanding "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot,
> klingon is more complete than quenya", I begun to wonder who the
> "he/they" was/were. Let alone that I did the mistake of thinking that
> the {tlhIngan Hol} was part of the {meH}ed construction, as opposed to
> the law'/puS construction.
>
> I'm not sure that would have helped. You weren't interpreting *tlhIngan
> Hol* as the subject of *jatlhqu'meH;* you were interpreting it as the
> head noun of *jatlhqu'meH.* Adding a *-lu'* wouldn't have changed
> anything.
>
> Klingon purpose clauses are often used in a sort of infinite way. You
> don't say *ghojlu'meH taj;* you say *ghojmeH taj.* A subject is not
> always necessary or even implied. Sometimes it is speculated that you need
> a subject if the purpose clause attaches to a sentence instead of a noun,
> but we don't really know, and no survey of canon has been done recently on
> that.
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170731/64aeb6a1/attachment-0016.htm>