[tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us"

[mayqel qunenoS]

SuStel:
> 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.*

hahaha ! Actually I won't. The part where I said "I will be using it like
there is no tomorrow", of my original message, meant: "I will be using it,
if it is indeed correct".

Since there are doubts however, I will not use it at all. I *will* be using
though (as if there's no tomorrow..) Rhona's {Hoch maH}. Because as I
understand there's no objection against the use of it.

If there is though, then someone please do tell me, before I start using it.

~ nI'ghma

On Jan 28, 2018 15:47, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

>
>
> On 1/28/2018 1:09 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:19 PM, SuStel <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.
>
> --
> 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/20180128/34efc54a/attachment-0016.htm>