[110210] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] So sarcophagus you say ? hmm..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Aug 1 11:46:48 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 11:46:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cLGB8RZ8PZCGaqTrzAVeEbqhnkDVXOe5iFaNbxWd2PWoQ@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.
--===============4062168036435464886==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------68E3BF0C39D96A72EA05E493"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------68E3BF0C39D96A72EA05E493
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 8/1/2017 11:01 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> 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.
Just that using or not using plural suffixes is usually a matter of
choice. They're nearly ALWAYS redundant to use, because they're
optional, but you can use them anyway. It's not true that wherever you
CAN remove plural markers you should. I think there are times where not
using plural markers is nicer, but that's not the same thing as saying
you SHOULD do it.
*pe'vIl mu'qaDmey tIbach!* (TKW) Sure, I COULD say *pe'vIl mu'qaD
tIbach,* but this is a proverb, so I'll go with the established form.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------68E3BF0C39D96A72EA05E493
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 11:01 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLGB8RZ8PZCGaqTrzAVeEbqhnkDVXOe5iFaNbxWd2PWoQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Just that using or not using plural suffixes is usually a matter
of choice. They're nearly ALWAYS redundant to use, because they're
optional, but you can use them anyway. It's not true that wherever
you CAN remove plural markers you should. I think there are times
where not using plural markers is nicer, but that's not the same
thing as saying you SHOULD do it.</p>
<p><b>pe'vIl mu'qaDmey tIbach!</b> (TKW) Sure, I COULD say <b>pe'vIl
mu'qaD tIbach,</b> but this is a proverb, so I'll go with the
established form.<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>
--------------68E3BF0C39D96A72EA05E493--
--===============4062168036435464886==
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
--===============4062168036435464886==--
