[110200] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] So sarcophagus you say ? hmm..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Aug 1 09:38:47 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 09:38:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJ=+3WmLC_7z1kWqA7rKOrdB9DA2T15XsxyoEtHty2-7g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============1390989541569912742==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------82DF7C4040FDF6FAEF56071C"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------82DF7C4040FDF6FAEF56071C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 8/1/2017 3:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> If we wanted to specifically express the "many others", i think it
> would be better to just write {latlh law'}. In this construction the
> meaning remains the same, without "tiring" the reader by making him
> read two "plurals" in a row.
I think you're really just reacting to the fact that the plural suffix
is optional. I sometimes point out where plural suffixes can be dropped
for stylistic reasons, but using the plural suffix is not so much
redundant as explicit. I too would probably say *latlh law'* instead of
*latlhpu' law'* most of the time, but I would only call this out where I
feel a stylistic improvement could be made. But I disagree that
*latlhpu' law'* can be reduced to *latlhpu'* without changing the
meaning. Sometimes the presence or lack of *law'* may not make a
difference to the overall meaning, but this won't always be true.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------82DF7C4040FDF6FAEF56071C
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/1/2017 3:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJ=+3WmLC_7z1kWqA7rKOrdB9DA2T15XsxyoEtHty2-7g@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">If we wanted to specifically express the "many others", i think it
would be better to just write {latlh law'}. In this construction the
meaning remains the same, without "tiring" the reader by making him
read two "plurals" in a row.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I think you're really just reacting to the fact that the plural
suffix is optional. I sometimes point out where plural suffixes
can be dropped for stylistic reasons, but using the plural suffix
is not so much redundant as explicit. I too would probably say <b>latlh
law'</b> instead of <b>latlhpu' law'</b> most of the time, but
I would only call this out where I feel a stylistic improvement
could be made. But I disagree that <b>latlhpu' law'</b> can be
reduced to <b>latlhpu'</b> without changing the meaning.
Sometimes the presence or lack of <b>law'</b> may not make a
difference to the overall meaning, but this won't always be true.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------82DF7C4040FDF6FAEF56071C--
--===============1390989541569912742==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============1390989541569912742==--
