Is the emphatic {chaH} Ca'NoN ?
Lets say I write: {vIghro'mey legh} for "they see the cats". maj.. Alternatively, I can write {vIghro'mey legh chaH}, for the same meaning. maj again.. Often I read, that by writing the {chaH} too, I'm placing emphasis on who it is who sees the cats; i.e. I'm actually saying: "THEY see the cats". Which is something I can't understand, since I always thought, that if I want to emphasize the {chaH} I would use the emphatic {-'e'}, as such: {vIghro'mey legh chaH'e'} So, I would like to ask.. Why if I write {vIghro'mey legh chaH}, without adding the {-'e'} on {chaH}, I'm actually emphasizing it ? (the {chaH} I mean). Can't I just be writing the {chaH}, in order to specify that it is "they" who see the cats instead of "him/her/it" ? Is this "emphatic" interpretation of {chaH} Ca'NoN or something ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
TKD says "Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added clarity. They are not required." So it seems an explicit pronoun can be used for emphasis, with or without {-'e'}. Perhaps there are levels of emphasis that haven't been elaborated on. On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:28 AM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Lets say I write: {vIghro'mey legh} for "they see the cats".
maj..
Alternatively, I can write {vIghro'mey legh chaH}, for the same meaning.
maj again..
Often I read, that by writing the {chaH} too, I'm placing emphasis on who it is who sees the cats; i.e. I'm actually saying:
"THEY see the cats".
Which is something I can't understand, since I always thought, that if I want to emphasize the {chaH} I would use the emphatic {-'e'}, as such:
{vIghro'mey legh chaH'e'}
So, I would like to ask..
Why if I write {vIghro'mey legh chaH}, without adding the {-'e'} on {chaH}, I'm actually emphasizing it ? (the {chaH} I mean).
Can't I just be writing the {chaH}, in order to specify that it is "they" who see the cats instead of "him/her/it" ?
Is this "emphatic" interpretation of {chaH} Ca'NoN or something ?
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I don't think it's been specified, but I don't think that the use of explicit pronouns is emphatic from a grammatical standpoint. However, using explicit pronouns may convey a sense of importance to listener/reader when they don't add any information to the sentence, as in «vIta' jIH.»; after all, the word doesn't serve any clarifying function, so that really only leaves being in there either for emphasis or for purely aesthetic reasons. You can make this emphasis more explicit by using -'e', or stressing the word «jIH». On the other hand, in «vIghro'mey legh chaH.», the word «chaH» helps to disambiguate the sentence, so you'd need something else (-'e', tone of voice, form of speech, etc.) to make it emphatic. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 4:39:27 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Is the emphatic {chaH} Ca'NoN ? TKD says "Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added clarity. They are not required." So it seems an explicit pronoun can be used for emphasis, with or without {-'e'}. Perhaps there are levels of emphasis that haven't been elaborated on. On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:28 AM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Lets say I write: {vIghro'mey legh} for "they see the cats". maj.. Alternatively, I can write {vIghro'mey legh chaH}, for the same meaning. maj again.. Often I read, that by writing the {chaH} too, I'm placing emphasis on who it is who sees the cats; i.e. I'm actually saying: "THEY see the cats". Which is something I can't understand, since I always thought, that if I want to emphasize the {chaH} I would use the emphatic {-'e'}, as such: {vIghro'mey legh chaH'e'} So, I would like to ask.. Why if I write {vIghro'mey legh chaH}, without adding the {-'e'} on {chaH}, I'm actually emphasizing it ? (the {chaH} I mean). Can't I just be writing the {chaH}, in order to specify that it is "they" who see the cats instead of "him/her/it" ? Is this "emphatic" interpretation of {chaH} Ca'NoN or something ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/16/2018 10:55 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
I don't think it's been specified, but I don't think that the use of explicit pronouns is emphatic from a grammatical standpoint. However, using explicit pronouns may convey a sense of importance to listener/reader when they don't add any information to the sentence, as in «vIta' jIH.»; after all, the word doesn't serve any clarifying function, so that really only leaves being in there either for emphasis or for purely aesthetic reasons.
You can make this emphasis more explicit by using -'e', or stressing the word «jIH».
On the other hand, in «vIghro'mey legh chaH.», the word «chaH» helps to disambiguate the sentence, so you'd need something else (-'e', tone of voice, form of speech, etc.) to make it emphatic.
This is my take as well. TKD uses the terms /emphasis, focus,/ and /clarity /vaguely, without grammatical precision. It calls *-'e'* /topic,/ but then uses it as focus. I think when TKD says "Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added clarity," it is exactly what Felix says: clarity when needed, usable to provide emphasis by stressing it vocally. It does not mean /focus/ like *-'e'* does. Notice also that the explanation of *-'e'* as focus shows the difference. Ignoring for a moment the missing verb prefix and the weird spacing, it says that *lujpu' jIH'e'* means /I, and only I, have failed,/ while *lujpu' jIH* means /I have failed/ with no emphasis of any kind. This is pretty clear and explicit. The emphasis of not dropping a pronoun is in its ability to clarify or spell out in careful detail what you mean, and does not provide the sort of emphasis that is focus. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Felix Malmenbeck -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel