[110207] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] So sarcophagus you say ? hmm..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunenoS)
Tue Aug 1 11:07:23 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <ae55700e-e993-1798-4932-49408e673a5c@trimboli.name>
From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:01:48 +0300
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
SuStel:
> using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit
What does this mean ? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not contradicting
you on this matter. I genuinely don't understand what this sentence
means.
qunnoq
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:38 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
