I was thinking.. If we can use asteriscs, in order to emphasize a whole word in a klingon passage, then perhaps it would be possible, to use asteriscs to emphasize a particular prefix/suffix. Examples: vIghro' tIQ Daghaj*chugh* *if* you had an ancient cat vIghro' tIQ Daghaj*laH*chugh if you were *able* to have an ancient cat vIghro' tIQ *Da*ghajlaHchugh if *you* were able to have an ancient cat (with the emphasis focusing on the you-it meaning) vIghro'*na'* tIQ vInej I search the ancient *definite* cat vIghro'na'*wIj* tIQ vInej I search *my* ancient definite cat Now.. I know, that for the purpose of emphasis, we could use the {-qu'} for verbs, and the {-'e'} for nouns. But as has been often said, the {-qu'} could be interpreted as to be emphasizing the entire preceding word with everything attached to it, and not *just* what immediately precedes it. And of course, the {-'e'} by definition, doesn't focus only on what immediately precedes it. So, perhaps, the asteriscs *could* be the way to go.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 2/7/2020 8:23 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If we can use asteriscs, in order to emphasize a whole word in a klingon passage, then perhaps it would be possible, to use asteriscs to emphasize a particular prefix/suffix.
Using asterisks to emphasize is just a representation of vocally stressing syllables. Do it if you want; it's not any part of Klingon grammar. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 9:04 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/7/2020 8:23 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If we can use asteriscs, in order to emphasize a whole word in a klingon passage, then perhaps it would be possible, to use asteriscs to emphasize a particular prefix/suffix.
Using asterisks to emphasize is just a representation of vocally stressing syllables. Do it if you want; it's not any part of Klingon grammar.
That said, there is some official commentary from Okrand regarding syllable emphasis: For the possessive suffixes, however, this doesn't work. {jaghna'lI'} means
"definitely your enemy (and not your friend, etc.)." It doesn't specifically mean "definitely your enemy (and not mine)."
He said if you want to emphasize the possessor, just give it extra stress when saying the word: {Duj*lIj*} (or Duj*lIj* or Duj*lIj* or Duj*lIj* or DujLIJ or however you want to transcribe it -- I'm not sure whether italics and bold and all of that will show up for you).
On 2/7/2020 11:20 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
That said, there is some official commentary from Okrand regarding syllable emphasis:
For the possessive suffixes, however, this doesn't work. {jaghna'lI'} means "definitely your enemy (and not your friend, etc.)." It doesn't specifically mean "definitely your enemy (and not mine)."
He said if you want to emphasize the possessor, just give it extra stress when saying the word: {Duj*lIj*} (or Duj_lIj_ or Duj/lIj/ or Duj*_lIj_* or DujLIJ or however you want to transcribe it -- I'm not sure whether italics and bold and all of that will show up for you).
I /knew /that Okrand had commented on emphasized syllables. I couldn't remember where. Now mayqel is going to ask us about *-na'* not applying to *-lI'...* :D -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 2/7/2020 1:57 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
Now mayqel is going to ask us about -na' not applying to -lI'... :D
Yes, indeed !
This confuses me greatly..
How can I know, when a suffix can apply to other suffixes too, and when it can't ?
Here's my quick take on that. // /Usually/ suffixes only apply to things that come before them. A common exception is combinations with *-moH,* since that suffix changes the subject from the doer of the action to the causer, and the other suffixes might apply to either doer or causer. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Usually suffixes only apply to things that come before them. A common exception is combinations with -moH, since that suffix changes the subject from the doer of the action to the causer, and the other suffixes might apply to either doer or causer.
Indeed ! Now that I re-read the relevant message from maltz, I noticed, that the difference between the examples where the {-na'} *could* apply to the other suffixes too, and the examples where it *can't*, is that in the examples where it *can*, it can apply to suffixes which precede it. What a relief, that there's a pattern which could explain this ! Often, trying to understand klingon grammar, turns to battling the hydra.. As soon as you begin to understand something, two more questions will crop up. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
participants (4)
-
jevreh＠qeylis.net -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel