tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 21 09:22:50 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qep'a' highlights
On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Mark J. Reed wrote:
...
> vIHev ngeHlu'DI', 'ej lutlha'bogh Hoch vIHevpu'. nom lunungbogh wej
> (ghap loS) vIje' je. Hoch vIlaDta' - 'ach bIH vIqawchu'be' je. :)
I've been noticing this trend to make what I'm currently interpreting as
an error ever since I noticed it in Hamlet. Inherantly plural nouns are
treated as grammatically singular. 3.3.2, page 24. Here, I'd consider
{Hoch} to be an inherantly plural noun, and since {wej} is being used as a
noun instead of as chuvmey, I'd similarly consider IT to be inherantly
plural as well, and so I'd eliminate the {lu-} prefixes for the verbs
which use these two nouns as subjects above.
In other words, I'd say:
Three guys see it.
lulegh wej nuv.
legh wej.
lulegh nuvpu'.
lulegh nuv.
The first example is the least controversial. I assume we all agree that
this is correct.
The second example probably is controversial, but given the description in
TKD on page 24, I'd like someone to explain to me why it is incorrect.
The third example is also not controversial.
The fourth example should also be correct because you never NEED to
express the plural suffix, ESPECIALLY if there is another grammatical sign
that the noun is plural. In this case {lu-} should be enough, and only an
English speaker accustomed to lots of redundancy would insist on the
plural suffix (though its presence is certainly not to be shunned, since
more people will more immediately understand you).
> -marqoS
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed |
> Email: [email protected] | HP Internet/System Security Lab
> Voice: +1 404 648 9535 | 2957 Clairmont Rd Suite 220
> Fax : +1 404 648 9516 | Atlanta GA 30329-1647 USA
>
charghwI'