tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 07 04:46:15 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: plurals

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: plurals
• Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:45:49 EST

In a message dated 11/7/2006 1:31:22 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> {lom} definitely is a thing, since body *parts* are only *parts* of a body.
> --> -Du' does not apply.
> 
> If I remember correctly, a corpse is dead, so cannot speak:
> --> -pu' does not apply.
> 
> ----> -mey is the correct plural suffix for corpses {lommey}.
> 
> > Is lom (corpse) a body part or a thing, and would -mey carry the 
> > scattered-about connotation whn applid to it?
> 
> Quvar.
> 
I remember somewhere ({Hamlet}?) that corpses *do* speak.  

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: plurals
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
  • Re: plurals
    • From: McArdle <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: disagree
• Next by Date: transitivity
• Previous by thread: Re: plurals
• Next by thread: Re: plurals
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level