[87420] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Numbers with pronouns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Wed Dec 2 13:53:47 2009
In-Reply-To: <f1d476f10912020707k3eb60587w8734ccb4327c8923@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:51:41 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 07:07, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> It's pretty much anti-canon. The existence of the verb {taH} "go on,
> endure, continue" (and the real-world context which created it) is a
> very strong indication that one does not use pronouns to mean "to be"
> in the sense of "to exist".
At yet we use the pronouns to mean "be at" a place, which is to say,
to mean "to exist in a place." The existence of the verb <taH> hardly
demonstrates that pronouns can't mean "to exist."
