tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 10 18:50:08 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pabpo'na'vo': HoD Qanqor 'e' vInuD
- From: "HurghwI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: pabpo'na'vo': HoD Qanqor 'e' vInuD
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:50:21 -0600
At 10:05 AM 1/10/97 -0800, you wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:47:01 -0800
>>From: [email protected]
>>
>>In a message dated 97-01-09 19:09:01 EST, HurghwI' writes:
>>
>><< >Why can't you say <mulegh SuvwI'pu'vetlh cha'>? This seems to make more
>> >sense, and it can be used effectively anywhere. Is there a restriction on
>> >this that I missed?
>>
>> Just realized, that's "those two warriors," but I've thought of something
>> else. Technically, can't this also mean "the two of those warriors?" In
>> other words, can't the meaning depend entirely on interpretation?
>> >>
>> No, mulegh SuvwI'pu'vetlh cha' does not mean "those two warriors." For
>>that, the number, cha', must come before the noun, SuvwI'pu'. Therefor, it
>>can only mean "those warriors numbered two," or, voila, "two of those
>>warriors."
>
>Huh? I was with you until the last sentence. When a cardinal number
>follows a noun, it has ordinal sense: canon {DuS wa'} is "torperdo tube
>#1", not "one torpedo tube." The "number" is not a reference to how many
>there are, but a specification of which one. "SuvwI' cha'" is "Warrior
>Number Two" (perhaps in a play where there are a few minor characters who
>don't get names). {SuvwI'pu' cha'} would presumably be "Warriors #2", as
>in maybe a second squad of them.
Actually, I was confused. I had intended it to precede the noun, as you
noted, not follow. I will not be able to write much for a week or so
because my keyboard is broken, and I have to type every " ", "n", and "b"
in ANSI characters! <SuvwI'pu'vetlh cha'> could mean "the two (of those) of
those warriors," or "two of those warriors," as a noun-noun possesive
construction.
-HurghwI'