SuStel:
This is what mayqel threatened to do, and I'm pretty sure he's planning on using it in lieu of *ever* using a straight *maH.*
hahaha ! Actually I won't. The part where I said "I will be using it like there is no tomorrow", of my original message, meant: "I will be using it, if it is indeed correct". Since there are doubts however, I will not use it at all. I *will* be using though (as if there's no tomorrow..) Rhona's {Hoch maH}. Because as I understand there's no objection against the use of it. If there is though, then someone please do tell me, before I start using it. ~ nI'ghma On Jan 28, 2018 15:47, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/28/2018 1:09 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The fierceness with which people desire a *y'all* in Klingon horrifies me. This is no different. There is no fundamental need to express this with a built-in phrase.
There is a "y'all". It's *tlhIH*. (Now, if someone wanted something for "all y'all"...)
There is no *all* implicit in *tlhIH.* It plural you, but not necessarily all of you.
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.
Oh nonono, I never said that. I have no problem with discussing the issue or occasionally needing to make explicit how much of *maH* (or *tlhIH*) 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 *we all* (or *y'all*) 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 *ever* using a straight *maH.*
*Assuming* this were something we wanted to say, I would expect it to be *maH Hoch,* not *Hochmaj.* Consider what we discover in KGT with area phrases (like *jIH 'em **area behind me,* not **'emwIj*). Why would you expect *maH Hoch* based on that? I admit that *Hochmaj* looks unusual, but *Hoch* is a grammatical noun and can presumably take noun suffixes. (We know it can take *-Hom*.) The only situation we know of where the *maH X* phrasing is explicitly preferred to the *Xmaj* phrasing is with area nouns, and *Hoch* is not an area noun. (And some area nouns like *'ev*, *chan*, and *tIng* do take possessive suffixes, even in *ta' Hol*.)
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.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org