tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 25 21:57:31 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QISmaS (was RE: RE: Samhain [Off Topic] (was:RE: qISmaS) [veering back on topic])
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: QISmaS (was RE: RE: Samhain [Off Topic] (was:RE: qISmaS) [veering back on topic])
- Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 01:03:42 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 23:05:05 -0500 Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' pagh:
> >>> Sorchaj luneH neH. 'IHmoHlaw'meH,
> >>> SorDaq 'aH law' lulan.
> >>
> >> <<lulan>>?
> >
> >This brings up an interesting question. Is <'aH> inherently plural, like its
> >English translation. If so, then <lulan> is correct.
>
> I disagree. I think putting {law'} on it makes it grammatically plural,
> whether or not it was inherently plural to begin with.
This crashes into the unresolved conflict we have over whether
{law'} can mean "much" as well as "many", as in {nIn law'
vIDIl}. Does this mean "I pay for much fuel," or does it have to
mean, "I pay for many fuels,"?
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
charghwI' 'utlh