[Tlhingan-hol] emphasizing noun suffixes

[André Müller]

2014-06-25 15:59 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:

> On 6/25/2014 9:41 AM, André Müller wrote:
>
>> But then you are saying that nouns would work differently from verbs in
>> Klingon.
>>
>
> Well, sure. Nouns are nouns and verbs are verbs. Why should we think they
> work the same?
>

So why do you assume the morphology of these work so much differently in
nouns and verbs? They could, indeed, but I wouldn't take this assumption
unless we have evidence for it.


> In short: It's not true that non-rover suffixes say something about all
>> that comes before them.
>>
>
> I didn't make that claim about anything except {-na'}. I believe what is
> true of {-na'} is also true of {-Hey} and {-qoq}. I am certainly not saying
> that all noun suffixes modify everything that comes before them.
>
> If we assume that the type 3 suffixes only modify the root noun, then we
> have no way to account for them modifying type 2 suffixes and not type 4
> suffixes, except to say that it's arbitrary. I'm not ruling that out, but I
> don't think that's it.
>

If we were talking about a {loDHom}, I think it's clear that we would not
> expect {loDHomna'} to be conforming only that {loD} is the correct noun. An
> N and an N-Hom are two different things. That's type 1. We have explicit
> instructions for at least one type 2 suffix and for all the type 4
> suffixes. So unless the type 5s are modified by the type 3s ({Dujna'Daq}
> "definitely on the ship"?), or unless we're dealing with unknown special
> cases, it's true that type 3s specify the accuracy of N-1-2, and not of
> -4-5.
>
>
Okay, well, {loDHom} is already lexicalized as referring to a male infant,
a boy, so that will probably be viewed as a unit. Perhaps a {loDHom} could
also be a gnome or a pygmy or a weakling or some tiny little man. For a
word like {paqHom} 'booklet', which might not be lexicalized, I would say
that {paqHomna'} is a book which is both small/minor/insignificant and
definite. I would understand it's definitely a book, and it's also tiny or
unimportant. It wouldn't necessarily have to mean that it's definitely a
book and it's definitely small. If a farsighted Klingon captain gives his
science officer a tiny object to analyze, saying that he thinks it might be
a book of some sort, that officer might then say: {paqHomna' 'oH!} - "It's
definitely a tiny book!", and then the {-na'} would logically refer to the
bookness of the thing, not to it's smallness, because that's already
obvious.
Other situation: A Klingon wants to buy a book on alcoholic beverages of
Vulcan. There probably isn't much to tell, so the book is a little 15 page
pocket booklet, a {paqHom}. The Klingon is surprised and says: "Now that's
really a bookLET!" (referring to its smallness and insignificantness).
Would he say {paqHomna' 'oH!}? I'm not sure. It would seem odd, since he
did want to buy a book, so of course he got a book. I don't think {-na'}
can emphasize the {-Hom} alone. But then again, a booklet it also a book,
so the example isn't the best, I admit. And then again, words in {-Hom}
might already be lexicalized and understood as a whole concept, as booklet
is.

Plurals are different, though, {paqmey} surely isn't lexicalized. So
{paqmeyna'} would only stress that it's definitely BOOKs (not other
objects), all the objects have the definite quality of being a book, each.
I don't think it can mean that they're definitely a multitude of items
called book (as opposed to one single book). I admit it's quite subtle to
show these differences of what exactly the suffixes are referring to,
sometimes. It's often vague and ambiguous but doesn't cause
missunderstanding, since it's often clear anyway.

That's my interpretation, judging from my understanding of Klingon grammar.
Perhaps there are some examples in Klingon canon that shows undoubtable
what exactly {-na'} or other suffixes refer to.

- André
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140625/9ca77213/attachment.html>