tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 22 19:27:56 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: "to be" and plurals
- From: Eric Andeen <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: "to be" and plurals
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:36:04 -0700
DloraH:
> > > Maori chaH 'op no'Daj'e'.
SuStel:
> > I've always wondered about this. Since inherently plural nouns are
> > treated, grammatically, as singular, you might expect this to be
> >
> > Maori ghaH 'op no'Daj'e'
> >
> > but that seems a bit ridiculous, at least to my linguistic biases.
DloraH:
> I thought about this when I was writing it.
> But I was wonder, about this and similar sentences, what
> happens when you add a number type element?
>
> cha 'oH.
> wej cha 'oH/bIH. ?
>
> Because if you merely used the number in place of the noun,
> which is allowed, wej bIH. ?
When counting inherently plural nouns, I always revert to the singular form:
wej jengva'
Soch peng
That avoids the trouble entirely.
pagh