tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 22 21:33:52 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yopwaH
- From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: yopwaH
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:33:40 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=X9SW3mfklZuRrgKlxy3XLJ9OMtQRfT79PFhPggi7Phtpl/Cfd0fZAktRBKCh9co2UzcWYmCluik1C2zOnZxQMbO0r9O6U1iWqIcBgFbzeGR5bYrhrX5zuNjCA1RH7szwwoi6DKgLNxQgm/A8DETTImWq2gUUmvu5j5fiMQ+2wCs= ;
- In-reply-to: <a05200f08bffa110bb88b@[216.80.74.188]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Oooooooooooooooooooooooh, well, technically then, calling them "pantlegs" would also work, but humans are lazy and we'll never call them panlegs. lol
Russ Perry Jr <[email protected]> wrote: At 8:33 PM -0800 1/22/06, Shane MiQogh wrote:
>Russ Perry Jr wrote:
>> jangpu' lay'SIv, ja':
>>> I've never, in 50 years, heard anyone talk about one of the two
>>> leggings of a pair of trousers as a 'pant'.
>> Yet "pantleg" isn't that unusual. Perhaps a singular, unbound,
>> form of "pant" is obsolete, but the bound form isn't dead yet.
> are you saying it was mearly a contraction, and it's actually pant
> legs that we wear everyday?
No. I'm saying that while the word "pant" (singular of "pants") is
never heard today, it still exists as a bound morpheme in the word
"pantleg".
--
//*================================================================++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 [email protected] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================================*//
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.