[Tlhingan-hol] emphasizing noun suffixes

[Fiat Knox]

Side note: use of -na'/-Hey noun suffixes against -law'/bej verb suffixes.


The noun suffix -na' definite doesn't carry the same meaning as the verb suffix -bej certainly, undoubtedly.

jaghpu'Hey vIlegh I see apparent enemies (I see them; they look like enemies)

jaghpu'na' vIlegh I see definite enemies (I see them; they identify as enemies beyond doubt)
jaghpu' vIleghlaw' I think I see enemies (I am looking for enemies; I think I can see the enemies I seek)
jaghpu' vIleghbej I undoubtedly see enemies (I am confident beyond doubt that I am looking at the enemies)

The verb suffix casts doubt upon the act of seeing; in other words, the doubt rests with the veracity of your own nervous system as the observer. Are you seeing them or not? You might believe yourself to be under the influence of hallucinogens, hypnosis or Talosian mind control, for example.


The noun suffix casts the doubt of certainty onto the object. There is no doubt in your sensors or senses: what you see is what is there. The question becomes one of identification of what you are seeing; non-hostile misidentified, apparent enemy that only looks hostile but might not be, or definite enemy.
Back to the topic - could the emphasis be related by stressing the syllable vocally?

'uQ/Hey/wIj DaSop'a' rIntaH Did you eat my apparent dinner?
(the thing on my plate looked like dinner; did you eat it?)

'uQHey/wIj/ DaSop'a' rIntaH Did you eat /my/ apparent dinner?
(the thing on all our plates looked like dinner - was it /my/ apparent dinner you ate, or yours?)





On Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 14:42, André Müller <esperantist at gmail.com> wrote:
 

>
>
>But then you are saying that nouns would work differently from verbs in Klingon. We know that in Klingon verbs the suffixes do not necessarily describe "everything to the left of it", {-nIS} goes to slot 2 and means 'need to', {-laH} goes to slot 5 and means 'be able to', but {jIlaDnISlaH} can still mean 'I need to be able to read' and not (necessarily) 'I am able to need to read', which is a possible interpretation, but simply doesn't make much sense, semantically. So in verbs, suffixes mainly refer back to the verb in general. Rovers are an exception, their scopus is on whatever comes left to them.
>
>I don't see a reason why nouns should work differently in Klingon. {jaghpu'na'} means that the concept ENEMY is modified to mean plurality and definiteness. So it's more than one enemy, and they're definite. The {-na'} could refer to the enemy-ness alone. So {jaghpu'na'} can mean specifiy that it's definitely sure that we're talking about someone hostile, but it might not be as sure that it's many of them. {jaghpu'na'} only confirms with certainty that it's enemies, not necessarily that they are many.
>
>In short: It's not true that non-rover suffixes say something about all that comes before them.
>
>I was going to say that all non-rover suffixes refer just back to the original verb or noun stem, but that might not be true either.
>
>- André
>
>
>
>
>2014-06-25 15:11 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:
>
>On 6/25/2014 5:39 AM, Lieven wrote:
>>
>>The word {jaghpu'na'} could mean "definitely enemies" (that is, there's
>>>no question that those people you're talking about are enemies and not
>>>friends or neutral parties or whatever), but, in the proper context, it
>>>could also mean "definitely (several or a lot of) enemies," focusing on
>>>the group or plurality.
>>>
>>{-na'} is a confirmation that everything to the left of it accurately describes the thing. This includes any plural suffix. {jaghpu'na'} "the word {jaghpu'} is definitely the correct word for this concept" confirms that the {-pu'} belongs. In cases where there's no need to confirm that {jagh} is the right noun, but where the difference between {wa' jagh} and {jaghpu'} is in question, {jaghpu'na'} will obviously have the effect of confirming the questionable {-pu'} part.
>>
>>-- 
>>SuStel
>>http://www.trimboli.name/
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>>Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>>http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140625/568ad6b2/attachment.html>