tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 13 12:03:08 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Ke'Plak

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Ke'Plak
• Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 14:05:30 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

ja' peHruS:
>In a message dated 98-09-11 11:05:30 EDT, Voragh writes:
>
><< to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh tIlaj!
>    Accept these stuffed tobbaj legs!  PK >>
>
>Since this is from a canon source, it must be correct.  However:
>
>lughoD indicates that to'baj 'uS is grammatically singular even if inherently
>plural.  And, tIlaj indicates a plural object.  Inconsistent!!!!

bIlughbe', peHruS.  chay' {lughoDlu'bogh} DalaDHa'ta'?

Look again -- there is no inconsistency here.  The prefix {lu-} on the
word {lughoDlu'bogh} says that the object {to'baj 'uS} is plural, not
singular.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: Ke'Plak
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: Ke'Plak
• Next by Date: Re: qaghqoq vIbotchoH
• Prev by thread: Re: Ke'Plak
• Next by thread: Re: Ke'Plak
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level