<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:47 AM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span> wrote:<span class="gmail-"></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail-"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
There is no <i>all</i> implicit in <b>tlhIH.</b> It plural you,
but not necessarily all of you.<span class="gmail-">
<br></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">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, <b>DoS vIchIl</b>.<br></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"></span>Because <b>maH Hoch</b> 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. <b>jIH 'em:</b>
it's not <i>my area behind;</i> it's <i>the area behind </i>narrowed
down with <i>me</i> as a descriptor. I don't possess the area.<span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">But again, not all area nouns take a separate pronoun: <b>chanwIj </b>"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:<br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">KGT (p. 24-25) says: <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">Using the possessive suffix construction when speaking <b>ta' Hol</b> 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.<br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">HolQeD 8:4 (p. 6-10) says</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">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: <b>jIH chan</b> "east of
me" (literally <I area eastward>). There
is a slight meaning difference
between <b>jIH chan</b>, using the full
pronoun, and <b>chanwIj</b>, 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, <b>chanwIj</b> is <east of me,
east of where I am, east of here> but <b>jIH chan</b> is <east of ME, to MY east>.
</div></blockquote><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">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.<br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">There are a few examples I've found where the possessive suffix is used in a similar sort of genitive fashion: <b>reH tay' ghot tuqDaj je</b> (the tribe is not possessed by the person in question, it's just the tribe associated with them). <b>QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj!</b> (you don't own your coordinates, you're just at them). <b>ghu'maj Dayajbe'law'</b> (Azetbur and the other Klingons don't own the situation, they're just experiencing it).<br></div><br></div></div><br></div></div>