<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/28/2018 1:09 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOur-Hd4TWiUzqXSx44rizgQws82c_=m723jASsOrcO00w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:19 PM,
SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:<span class=""></span><br>
<span class=""> </span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>The fierceness with which people desire a <i>y'all</i>
in Klingon horrifies me. This is no different. There
is no fundamental need to express this with a built-in
phrase.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">There is a "y'all". It's <b>tlhIH</b>.
(Now, if someone wanted something for "all y'all"...)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is no <i>all</i> implicit in <b>tlhIH.</b> It plural you,
but not necessarily all of you.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOur-Hd4TWiUzqXSx44rizgQws82c_=m723jASsOrcO00w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Oh nonono, I never said that. I have no problem with discussing the
issue or occasionally needing to make explicit how much of <b>maH</b>
(or <b>tlhIH</b>) 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 <i>we all</i> (or <i>y'all</i>)
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 <i>ever</i> using a straight <b>maH.</b><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOur-Hd4TWiUzqXSx44rizgQws82c_=m723jASsOrcO00w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><i>Assuming</i> this were something we wanted to say, I
would expect it to be <b>maH Hoch,</b> not <b>Hochmaj.</b>
Consider what we discover in KGT with area phrases (like
<b>jIH 'em </b><i>area behind me,</i> not *<b>'emwIj</b>).<br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">Why would you expect <b>maH Hoch</b>
based on that? I admit that <b>Hochmaj</b> looks
unusual, but <b>Hoch</b> is a grammatical noun and can
presumably take noun suffixes. (We know it can take <b>-Hom</b>.)
The only situation we know of where the <b>maH X</b>
phrasing is explicitly preferred to the <b>Xmaj</b>
phrasing is with area nouns, and <b>Hoch</b> is not an
area noun. (And some area nouns like <b>'ev</b>, <b>chan</b>,
and <b>tIng</b> do take possessive suffixes, even in <b>ta'
Hol</b>.)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>