[Tlhingan-hol] emphasizing noun suffixes

[Steven Boozer]

Andre:
> 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 misunderstanding, 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.

Previously known examples of N3 suffixes together with plural suffixes on the same noun:

  QaghHommeyHeylIjmo' 
  due to your apparent minor errors. TKD

  qorDu' lurDechmeyna' pab tlhInganpu' 
  With strong [Klingon] family traditions... S13

  Duypu'qoqchaj 
  their so-called emissaries TKD

Have I missed any?


--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons