[tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us"

[nIqolay Q]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:47 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

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

​In many places that use "y'all", it's just a pronoun for plural you,
though it's clearly derived from "you all". This is where the "all y'all"
construction comes in, to mean "all of you (plural)". Anyway, *DoS vIchIl*.


> 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.
>

​​But again, not all area nouns take a separate pronoun: *chanwIj *"east of
me, my area-eastward" is a perfectly fine construction. So far, I found two
things talking about the distinction between pronoun-noun and noun-suffix
constructions:

KGT (p. 24-25) says:

> Using the possessive suffix construction when speaking *ta' Hol* will not
> lead to misunderstandings, but it will associate the speaker with the
> residents of Sakrej, which, depending on the political situation, may or
> may not be beneficial.
>

HolQeD 8:4 (p. 6-10) says

> It is also possible (though the Sakrej folks tend not to do this) to use
> the full pronoun plus locative noun construction with the directional
> nouns: *jIH chan* "east of me" (literally <I area eastward>). There is a
> slight meaning difference between *jIH chan*, using the full pronoun, and
> *chanwIj*, using the possessive suffix, however. The construction with
> the full pronoun emphasize the pronoun (in this case "I," the speaker
> him-herself) as the reference point; the construction with the pronominal
> suffix is more neutral. Thus, *chanwIj* is <east of me, east of where I
> am, east of here> but *jIH chan* is <east of ME, to MY east>.
>

Both of these examples are about the locational and directional nouns, so
they might not really apply here anyway. But they suggest that any
non-stylistic distinction between the two forms isn't about the semantics
of possessing an area, but an issue of emphasis.

There are a few examples I've found where the possessive suffix is used in
a similar sort of genitive fashion: *reH tay' ghot tuqDaj je* (the tribe is
not possessed by the person in question, it's just the tribe associated
with them). *QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj!* (you don't own your coordinates,
you're just at them). *ghu'maj Dayajbe'law'* (Azetbur and the other
Klingons don't own the situation, they're just experiencing it).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180128/3060e693/attachment-0002.htm>