If in spoken klingon, I'm able to stress the verb suffix which I want to emphasize, then why the jay' would I ever need to use the -qu', after a suffix, while speaking ? ~ 'ISterlIng
Because {-qu'} and intonational emphasis might not express the same thing. See, we have "very" in English, but why do we need it if we can just as well stress the adjective? Wouldn't that be very useful? Wouldn't that be USEFUL? Wouldn't that be VERY useful? Wouldn't that be very USEFUL? Wouldn't that be VERY USEFUL? See what I did there? The intonation and use of "very" makes very slight differences in meaning and, well, emphasis, so they're not always interchangable. What exactly the difference is, can be really difficult to determine. One interpretation might be, that {-qu'} strengthens the meaning of the preceding verb or suffix, e.g. «jISovbe'qu'.» = I really/absolutely don't know it. Not a tiny little bit of it. On the other hand, the intonation (be it louder, longer, higher pitch or whatever) might just show a contrast or put the emphasis on that preceding suffix, e.g. «jISovBE'.» — I do NOT know it (in contrast to what you just assumed). This is what the difference can possibly be about, I'm not saying that it really works exactly like that in Klingon. Greetings from Zurich, — André Am Sa., 13. Okt. 2018 um 21:54 Uhr schrieb mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com
:
If in spoken klingon, I'm able to stress the verb suffix which I want to emphasize, then why the jay' would I ever need to use the -qu', after a suffix, while speaking ?
~ 'ISterlIng _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I like how ironically you mark your question as "silly". But honestly, it's not so silly at all. Am 13.10.2018 um 21:53 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
If in spoken klingon, I'm able to stress the verb suffix which I want to emphasize, then why the jay' would I ever need to use the -qu', after a suffix, while speaking ?
Well, go back to the first use of it and there is your situation: When there is only ONE suffix. STV, Captain Klaa: {qIrq wItlha'taHqu'} "Where Kirk goes, we follow." The difference is like {wItlha'taH} - "we will keep following him" {wItlha'taHqu'} - "we will keep following him forever" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ST5
In qIrq wItlha’taHqu’, Klaa stresses the tlha’ and the -qu’, just as you’d expect. It doesn’t answer the question posed. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: Lieven L. Litaer Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 4:00 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Silly question of the day I like how ironically you mark your question as "silly". But honestly, it's not so silly at all. Am 13.10.2018 um 21:53 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
If in spoken klingon, I'm able to stress the verb suffix which I want to emphasize, then why the jay' would I ever need to use the -qu', after a suffix, while speaking ?
Well, go back to the first use of it and there is your situation: When there is only ONE suffix. STV, Captain Klaa: {qIrq wItlha'taHqu'} "Where Kirk goes, we follow." The difference is like {wItlha'taH} - "we will keep following him" {wItlha'taHqu'} - "we will keep following him forever" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ST5 _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
In qIrq wItlha’taHqu’, Klaa stresses the tlha’ and the -qu’, just as you’d expect. It doesn’t answer the question posed. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: Lieven L. Litaer Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 4:00 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Silly question of the day I like how ironically you mark your question as "silly". But honestly, it's not so silly at all. Am 13.10.2018 um 21:53 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
If in spoken klingon, I'm able to stress the verb suffix which I want to emphasize, then why the jay' would I ever need to use the -qu', after a suffix, while speaking ?
Well, go back to the first use of it and there is your situation: When there is only ONE suffix. STV, Captain Klaa: {qIrq wItlha'taHqu'} "Where Kirk goes, we follow." The difference is like {wItlha'taH} - "we will keep following him" {wItlha'taHqu'} - "we will keep following him forever" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ST5 _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 10:00, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
The difference is like {wItlha'taH} - "we will keep following him" {wItlha'taHqu'} - "we will keep following him forever"
I don't think so. To express "forever", you need {reH} with either the verb suffix {-taH} or the verb {taH}. {reH} by itself is just "always", and {-taH}/{taH} just mean "continuous"/"continue". The concept of "forever" is expressed as "always, in a continuous manner" in Klingon. Here are some examples from canon with the "forever" meaning: {pa' reH maSuvtaHqu'.} {reH tlhInganpu' taHjaj!} / {reH tlhIngan wo' taHjaj.} {reH 'uQvam vIqawtaH.} {wItlha'taHqu'} is more like "we will KEEP following him" or "we will CONTINUE TO follow him". -- De'vID
Am 15.10.2018 um 11:22 schrieb De'vID:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 10:00, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de <mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote:
The difference is like {wItlha'taH} - "we will keep following him" {wItlha'taHqu'} - "we will keep following him forever"
I don't think so. To express "forever", you need {reH}
Yes, of course you're right. Sorry for being sloppy in my english translation. The meaning of that usage here shows that Klaa will "follow wherever he may go". Time is not involved. So the difference is actually:
{wItlha'taH} - "we follow him continously" {wItlha'taHqu'} - "we follow him REALLY continously"
{wItlha'taHqu'} is more like "we will KEEP following him" or "we will CONTINUE TO follow him".
I think that is already included in the -taH suffix... And I think that the main problem here is to find an adequate ENGLISH translation. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On 10/15/2018 6:36 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
So the difference is actually:
{wItlha'taH} - "we follow him continously" {wItlha'taHqu'} - "we follow him REALLY continously"
In the context of the movie, what Klaa means is "We are damn well gonna KEEP following him, no matter what!" He's not saying the continuousness is especially continuous so much as he is saying "You hear me say *-taH?* Then make it *-taH!* I really mean this *-taH!*" -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
André Müller -
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel