[tlhIngan Hol] Is the emphatic {chaH} Ca'NoN ?

nIqolay Q niqolay0 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 16 07:39:27 PST 2018

TKD says "Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added
clarity. They are not required." So it seems an explicit pronoun can be
used for emphasis, with or without {-'e'}. Perhaps there are levels of
emphasis that haven't been elaborated on.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:28 AM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> Lets say I write: {vIghro'mey legh} for "they see the cats".
> maj..
> Alternatively, I can write {vIghro'mey legh chaH}, for the same meaning.
> maj again..
> Often I read, that by writing the {chaH} too, I'm placing emphasis on who
> it is who sees the cats; i.e. I'm actually saying:
> "THEY see the cats".
> Which is something I can't understand, since I always thought, that if I
> want to emphasize the {chaH} I would use the emphatic {-'e'}, as such:
> {vIghro'mey legh chaH'e'}
> So, I would like to ask..
> Why if I write {vIghro'mey legh chaH}, without adding the {-'e'} on
> {chaH}, I'm actually emphasizing it ? (the {chaH} I mean).
> Can't I just be writing the {chaH}, in order to specify that it is "they"
> who see the cats instead of "him/her/it" ?
> Is this "emphatic" interpretation of {chaH} Ca'NoN or something ?
> ~ mayqel qunen'oS
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181116/bdde3b41/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list