[109407] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {DeSqIv} and {noq}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Apr 4 11:08:40 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:08:06 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmPfwMQyc6hUXmx37He8Pc_3xcc9oOFJUOuyFBhp+edN-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
On 4/4/2017 5:58 AM, De'vID wrote:
> But the point is that there is no existing rule. It's implied that
> when body part words are used with slang meanings, or to refer to
> things which are analogous to body parts, they remain grammatically
> body parts. People assumed a rule based on a few examples, but it now
> seems that we have about the same number of counterexamples.
Right. We have suggested a rule based on the KGT examples, but for my =
part I have always qualified it as speculative. We now have =
counterexamples, suggesting this is not a general rule=97the grammatical =
genders of "being capable of using language," "body part," and =
"everything else" are not necessarily baked into the nouns themselves, =
but may depend on which noun and what circumstance the plurals are being =
used.
Whether Okrand simply forgot about words like {DeSqIvDu'} I don't know, =
and it doesn't really matter. We know enough to say that we can't draw =
any firm conclusions about this subject without explicit guidance.
-- =
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
