On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:47 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
There is no *all* implicit in *tlhIH.* It plural you, but not necessarily all of you.
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, *DoS vIchIl*.
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.
But again, not all area nouns take a separate pronoun: *chanwIj *"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: KGT (p. 24-25) says:
Using the possessive suffix construction when speaking *ta' Hol* 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.
HolQeD 8:4 (p. 6-10) says
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: *jIH chan* "east of me" (literally <I area eastward>). There is a slight meaning difference between *jIH chan*, using the full pronoun, and *chanwIj*, 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, *chanwIj* is <east of me, east of where I am, east of here> but *jIH chan* is <east of ME, to MY east>.
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. There are a few examples I've found where the possessive suffix is used in a similar sort of genitive fashion: *reH tay' ghot tuqDaj je* (the tribe is not possessed by the person in question, it's just the tribe associated with them). *QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj!* (you don't own your coordinates, you're just at them). *ghu'maj Dayajbe'law'* (Azetbur and the other Klingons don't own the situation, they're just experiencing it).