tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 21 05:29:28 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op
ja' charghwI':
>> p.54 of TKD seems to imply it should be {cha' DISop}.
>>
>> ~mark
>
>While I would LIKE to use {cha' DISop}, page 54 gives me no
>certainty of this. The examples are:
>
>mulegh cha' - where the prefix tells us nothing because either a
>plural or singular third person subject gives us {mu-}.
The translation says "they see me". That implies {cha'} is being
treated as a plural subject.
>wa' yIHoH - where the prefix tells us nothing because the object
>is singular.
The commentary after this example says {wa'} can be left off with
no difference in meaning because {yI-} indicates a singular object.
>So, why does this indicate to you that a number greater than one
>used as a noun does not follow the rule that inherantly plural
>nouns are treated grammatically as singular? It is a conclusion
>I'd like to see proved because I like it, but so far I have
>found no such proof.
It's not proof, but it's a pair of strong implications.
-- ghunchu'wI'