[92926] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh javmaH jav: bIjqoq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Sun Apr 22 14:20:44 2012
From: ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120419161303.0484e398@flyingstart.ca>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:56:02 -0400
To: Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
Cc: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Apr 19, 2012, at 7:43 PM, Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> Hota'ro' bIjqoq cha'bogh meH ta lubejpu' 'e' luchIDqangbe'law'.
jIrap.
> negh ghaH.
>
> [219] This pronoun feels utterly wrong, like it should be negh chaH--and it took me several readings to catch it, but it's in line with {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} from KGT. It irks me when I have a grammatically singular subject for plural beings and I can't use lu- for a singular object.
I think {negh chaH} can be justified.
{tlhIngan maH} is perfectly fine even without marking the object as explicitly plural. That might not be enough by itself, as we know unmarked nouns *can* be plural and we know {negh} is not, so I'm going to invite debate on a related situation:
Is anything wrong with {qorDu' maH}?
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
