tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 22 11:52:47 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh javmaH jav: bIjqoq
> negh ghaH.
>
> [219] This pronoun feels utterly wrong, like it should be negh
chaH--and it took me several readings to catch it, but it's in line
with {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} from KGT. It irks me when I have a
grammatically singular subject for plural beings and I can't use
lu- for a singular object.
I think {negh chaH} can be justified.
How do you do that, while {ngop bIH} remains babytalk?
{tlhIngan maH} is perfectly fine even without marking the object as
explicitly plural.
Yes, but so is {tlhIngan jIH}, and we know that {tlhIngan} can be
grammatically singular or plural without explicit marking.
That might not be enough by itself, as we know unmarked nouns *can*
be plural and we know {negh} is not, so I'm going to invite debate
on a related situation:
Is anything wrong with {qorDu' maH}?
Nothing. vIlajchu'.
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol