[Tlhingan-hol] emphasizing noun suffixes

[SuStel]

On 6/25/2014 10:46 AM, André Müller wrote:
> 2014-06-25 15:59 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name
> <mailto: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.

Evidence:

1. Okrand says the focus of {-na'} can be either the noun or a plural 
suffix, depending on context.

2. Okrand says the focus of {-na'} cannot be on a possessive suffix.

Supposition:

1. The focus of ANY qualification suffix can be either the noun or a 
plural suffix, depending on context.

Again, I'm not saying this is a general rule of noun suffixes, just the 
scope of the qualification suffixes.

> 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.

So you're treating a lexicalized N-1 as a sort of supernoun whose 
suffixes start at 2?

What about lexicalized verbs like {chenmoH}? We have been explicitly 
told that (most of) these are ordinary verb+suffix, not a superverb.

> 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.

Which is why what I proposed means that {paqHomna'} would mean that 
{-na'} specifies that {paqHom}, the entire word, is what {-na'} refers 
to, and context is what tells you which part gets emphasis. This is what 
Okrand described, although he described it for plural suffixes, not 
augmentative/diminutive suffixes.

> 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).

That's exactly what Okrand's explanation tells us. If you're in a 
situation where you're sure your dealing with some number of books, but 
you don't know if it's one or many, and your science officer uses the 
word {paqmeyna'}, he's saying he's sure that the entire explicitly 
plural word {paqmey} accurately identifies the situation. Since there 
was no question about the bookishness of the noun, the only question was 
whether it was plural, which the officer has now answered.

Therefore...

Supposition:

2. The focus of a qualitative suffix can also be a 
augmentative/diminutive suffix, depending on context.

3. Qualitative suffixes do not emphasize syntactic suffixes.

That one is just a hunch. I could imagine trying to distinguish between 
{Dujna'Daq} and {Dujna'vo'}, but it doesn't feel right.

Note: In all of the above, "focus" does not mean "applies solely to." It 
refers to what gets emphasized about a noun in context.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/