[92927] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh javmaH jav: bIjqoq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Qov)
Sun Apr 22 14:52:52 2012
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:50:17 -0700
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
From: Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <021BFA8A-E5EB-440E-9A8B-992C3354F822@alcaco.net>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> > 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.
How do you do that, while {ngop bIH} remains babytalk?
>{tlhIngan maH} is perfectly fine even without marking the object as
>explicitly plural.
Yes, but so is {tlhIngan jIH}, and we know that {tlhIngan} can be
grammatically singular or plural without explicit marking.
>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}?
Nothing. vIlajchu'.
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
