<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/14/2018 1:01 PM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3297b174-6c11-959b-d687-6704af10b448@gmx.de">Am
14.10.2018 um 18:52 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In the past we have said that the -qu',
can act either by emphasizing only the suffix which directly
precedes it, or by adding emphasis to the entire word.
<br>
<br>
So, if the -qu' is used with the intention of emphasizing only
the preceding suffix, then I still don't understand why we
should use it in spoken klingon, and not just stress with our
voice the final suffix instead.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I suggest you go back to the chapter in TKD, which clearly shows
the difference that happens on the word qaHoHvIpbe'qu' and so on.
The different meanings are done in Englisch only with emphasis.
Like "I am NOT afraid to kill you" vs. "I'm afraid to NOT kill
you" (I won't quote the entire section).
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On the other hand, if by the use of -qu',
we want to emphasize the entire preceding word (i.e. verb and
the sum of suffixes it bears), then I do understand why it would
be needed, with its job unable to be done by merely adding
emphasis with our voice on the final suffix.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Remember that it can even emphasize the entire sentence, as in
{nom yIghoSqu'} where it basically epmphasized the {nom}.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On the third hand, why not emphasize with
our voice the entire word with all its suffixes and be done with
it, rather than using the -qu' ?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The other kind of usage is translated with "very".
<br>
{qaparHa'} is less then {qaparHa'qu'}.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>How it is rendered in English is insufficient. What does the
suffix MEAN, and why doesn't stress suffice?</p>
<p><b>-qu'</b> is an intensifier. If means whatever it applies to is
stronger in meaning or more worthy of attention than without it. I
don't think the "kinds of usage" you've illustrated are
significantly different in meaning.<br>
</p>
<p>I can think of two good reasons for <b>-qu'</b> to exist. One,
because you can't count on being able to change a syllable's
stress from unstressed to stress wherever you want the
intensifier. If you've got <b>vIta'pu'be'</b> and you want to
intensify one of those syllables with stress only, you're out of
luck — they're already stressed. Two, because it just does. Maybe
Klingon originally didn't allow stressing syllables for
intensifying. Maybe stressing a syllable only emphasizes to
clarify, not to intensify. Maybe <b>-qu'</b> used to be a kind of
double-intensifier. We don't know any of this, so it's impossible
to say.</p>
<p>What we do know is that <b>-qu'</b> does exist, and it is used
frequently by Klingons. We don't know as much about stress as we
do about <b>-qu'.</b> This is why you should use <b>-qu':</b>
because that's how you speak Klingon.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>