[tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us"

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Sun Jan 28 05:47:58 PST 2018



On 1/28/2018 1:09 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:19 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     The fierceness with which people desire a /y'all/ in Klingon
>     horrifies me. This is no different. There is no fundamental need
>     to express this with a built-in phrase.
>
> ​There is a "y'all". It's *tlhIH*. (Now, if someone wanted​ something 
> for "all y'all"...)

There is no /all/ implicit in *tlhIH.* It plural you, but not 
necessarily all of you.

> I disagree with the underlying idea here that not fundamentally 
> needing a certain phrase or construction means it's not worth being 
> ever used or discussed.

Oh nonono, I never said that. I have no problem with discussing the 
issue or occasionally needing to make explicit how much of *maH* (or 
*tlhIH*) one is talking about; see my subsequent discussion of what it 
would look like if you used it. I object to the casual translation of 
English /we all/ (or /y'all/) with a set phrase everywhere it appears. 
This is what mayqel threatened to do, and I'm pretty sure he's planning 
on using it in lieu of /ever/ using a straight *maH.*


> /Assuming/ this were something we wanted to say, I would expect it to 
> be *maH Hoch,* not *Hochmaj.* Consider what we discover in KGT with 
> area phrases (like *jIH 'em */area behind me,/ not **'emwIj*).
>
> ​Why would you expect *maH Hoch* based on that? I admit that *Hochmaj* 
> looks unusual, but *Hoch* is a grammatical noun and can presumably 
> take noun suffixes. (We know it can take *-Hom*.) The only situation 
> we know of where the *maH X* phrasing is explicitly preferred to the 
> *Xmaj* phrasing is with area nouns, and *Hoch* is not an area noun. 
> (And some area nouns like *'ev*, *chan*, and *tIng* do take possessive 
> suffixes, even in *ta' Hol*.)

Because *maH Hoch* appears to derive its meaning from the genitive 
noun-noun construction, not from possession. I don't think the area 
nouns work with pronouns the way they do because they are an exception 
to the rule; I think they work that way because they use a more general 
genitive way than possession. *jIH 'em:* it's not /my area behind;/ it's 
/the area behind /narrowed down with /me/ as a descriptor. I don't 
possess the area.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180128/c743d3a2/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list