tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 19 10:06:04 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ke'Plak
mujang peHruS:
>> 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.
>
>I far prefer Voragh's explanation that the suffix {-lu'} reverses the
>plurality to the subject, indicated as plural by the prefix {lu-}.
nuqjatlh? I can't parse "...reverses the plurality to the subject..."
and I can't figure out a way to make sense out of it by assuming minor
typographical errors anywhere either. That's certainly not how Voragh
explained it, at least not in any note *I* have read. The suffix {-lu'}
can't do anything to the subject -- it says that there is *no* subject!
>As to you statement that the prefix {lu-} says that the object is plural, I
>must strongly disagree. This prefix indicates that a plural subject acts on a
>singular object.
I must assume that your brain has temporarily siezed up. I *know* that
you know how the suffix {-lu'} works. I *know* that you know that the
prefix {lu-} on a word with the suffix {-lu'} indicates that an indefinite
subject acts on a plural object. I would have let this slide, except for
the possibility that your confusion might spread to affect others.
-- ghunchu'wI'