Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Silly question of the day
Am 14.10.2018 um 13:48 schrieb SuStel:
In *qIrq wItlha’taHqu’, *Klaa stresses the *tlha’* and the *-qu’,* just as you’d expect. It doesn’t answer the question posed.
I think it does, depening how you read the question. He asked why he would need the suffix -qu' if he can stress the suffix with his voice. My answer was that {-qu'} does not only stress its preceding syllable, it does more. That's why I quoted Klaa here. Klaa could have said {wItlha'TTAAHH} beut he cided to add {-qu'}, making the taH suffix more than just -taH. That's more than putting emphasis on it. Maybe I did not express my thoughts enough, or I didn't understand the question correctly. Perhabs mayqel can just say if my answer was helpful or not. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Stress
lieven:
Perhabs mayqel can just say if my answer was helpful or not.
I think the answer is both "yes" and "no", depending on how the effect of -qu' is understood. In the past we have said that the -qu', can act either by emphasizing only the suffix which directly precedes it, or by adding emphasis to the entire word. So, if the -qu' is used with the intention of emphasizing only the preceding suffix, then I still don't understand why we should use it in spoken klingon, and not just stress with our voice the final suffix instead. On the other hand, if by the use of -qu', we want to emphasize the entire preceding word (i.e. verb and the sum of suffixes it bears), then I do understand why it would be needed, with its job unable to be done by merely adding emphasis with our voice on the final suffix. On the third hand, why not emphasize with our voice the entire word with all its suffixes and be done with it, rather than using the -qu' ? ~ channgan qIj
Am 14.10.2018 um 18:52 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
In the past we have said that the -qu', can act either by emphasizing only the suffix which directly precedes it, or by adding emphasis to the entire word.
So, if the -qu' is used with the intention of emphasizing only the preceding suffix, then I still don't understand why we should use it in spoken klingon, and not just stress with our voice the final suffix instead.
I suggest you go back to the chapter in TKD, which clearly shows the difference that happens on the word qaHoHvIpbe'qu' and so on. The different meanings are done in Englisch only with emphasis. Like "I am NOT afraid to kill you" vs. "I'm afraid to NOT kill you" (I won't quote the entire section).
On the other hand, if by the use of -qu', we want to emphasize the entire preceding word (i.e. verb and the sum of suffixes it bears), then I do understand why it would be needed, with its job unable to be done by merely adding emphasis with our voice on the final suffix.
Remember that it can even emphasize the entire sentence, as in {nom yIghoSqu'} where it basically epmphasized the {nom}.
On the third hand, why not emphasize with our voice the entire word with all its suffixes and be done with it, rather than using the -qu' ?
The other kind of usage is translated with "very". {qaparHa'} is less then {qaparHa'qu'}. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On 10/14/2018 1:01 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 14.10.2018 um 18:52 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
In the past we have said that the -qu', can act either by emphasizing only the suffix which directly precedes it, or by adding emphasis to the entire word.
So, if the -qu' is used with the intention of emphasizing only the preceding suffix, then I still don't understand why we should use it in spoken klingon, and not just stress with our voice the final suffix instead.
I suggest you go back to the chapter in TKD, which clearly shows the difference that happens on the word qaHoHvIpbe'qu' and so on. The different meanings are done in Englisch only with emphasis. Like "I am NOT afraid to kill you" vs. "I'm afraid to NOT kill you" (I won't quote the entire section).
On the other hand, if by the use of -qu', we want to emphasize the entire preceding word (i.e. verb and the sum of suffixes it bears), then I do understand why it would be needed, with its job unable to be done by merely adding emphasis with our voice on the final suffix.
Remember that it can even emphasize the entire sentence, as in {nom yIghoSqu'} where it basically epmphasized the {nom}.
On the third hand, why not emphasize with our voice the entire word with all its suffixes and be done with it, rather than using the -qu' ?
The other kind of usage is translated with "very". {qaparHa'} is less then {qaparHa'qu'}.
How it is rendered in English is insufficient. What does the suffix MEAN, and why doesn't stress suffice? *-qu'* is an intensifier. If means whatever it applies to is stronger in meaning or more worthy of attention than without it. I don't think the "kinds of usage" you've illustrated are significantly different in meaning. I can think of two good reasons for *-qu'* to exist. One, because you can't count on being able to change a syllable's stress from unstressed to stress wherever you want the intensifier. If you've got *vIta'pu'be'* and you want to intensify one of those syllables with stress only, you're out of luck — they're already stressed. Two, because it just does. Maybe Klingon originally didn't allow stressing syllables for intensifying. Maybe stressing a syllable only emphasizes to clarify, not to intensify. Maybe *-qu'* used to be a kind of double-intensifier. We don't know any of this, so it's impossible to say. What we do know is that *-qu'* does exist, and it is used frequently by Klingons. We don't know as much about stress as we do about *-qu'.* This is why you should use *-qu':* because that's how you speak Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 19:01, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Remember that it can even emphasize the entire sentence, as in {nom yIghoSqu'} where it basically epmphasized the {nom}.
It's never been fully explained, but I don't think it's just emphasis here. I think {-qu'} on a verb with only an adverbial and no suffixes does something to the meaning. Another example is: {nom leng Hun nom lengqu' lut} "Stories travel faster than a Khrun". -- De'vID
participants (4)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel