tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 19 15:46:53 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: "to be" and plurals
- From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: "to be" and plurals
- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:52:57 +0000
jIjatlh:
>But should you even use numbers with inherent plurals? As I recall, the
>inherent plurals refer to things considered as a single unit/group (can't
>remember where I read this); therefore using a number with them would seem
>to be a contradiction.
jatlh Dlorah:
>Your sentences don't specify any numerical value other than "multiple".
>What if the captain orders you to fire three torpedoes?
>[wej cha] or if we shouldn't put numbers on inherently plurals, [wej peng]?
jatlh SuStel:
>I don't think it's been stated anywhere by Okrand that words with plural
>meanings are considered a single group. Certainly we treat them that way
>grammatically, but I don't know of anything that would prevent me from
>talking about /wej cha/ "three torpedoes."
>
>wej cha yIbaH
>Fire three torpedoes!
>
>wej peng tIbaH
>Fire three (scattered) torpedoes!
>
>On the other hand, it's possible that you're correct, and that inherently
>plural nouns can't be modified by numbers. This is, I think, an area we
>just won't know about without information from Maltz.
Perhaps whatever I read was in HolQeD or on this list. In any case, even if
nothing from Maltz prevents it, I am uncomfortable using numbers with
inherent plurals. I would definitely say
wej peng
or
wej pengmey
as opposed to
wej cha
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail