tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 17 22:38:13 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plurality of everything
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: plurality of everything
- Date: Wed, 18 May 94 10:35:35 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark Nudelman" at May 17, 94 12:26 pm
According to Mark Nudelman:
>
>
> Reply to: RE>>plurality of everything
> jatlh charghwI':
> >I suggest that the rule in TKD 3.3.2, page 24 should
> >take care of this. "Inherently plural nouns are treated
> >grammatically as singular nouns in that singular pronouns are
> >used to refer to them..." I vote for {Hoch luSov...}
>
> Hmm, interesting. This seems reasonable, but it leaves me
> rather puzzled about a sentence I wrote a couple of days ago:
> chaq mu'ghommeymajDaq 'Iw wIchaghnIS Hoch .
> If Hoch is singular, then wIchaghnIS is incorrect. But it doesn't
> make sense to try to say "We all should ..." without using a first
> person plural prefix, right? "vIchaghnIS Hoch" is nonsense! On
> the other hand, I was a little uneasy about the apposition of the
> subject in this sentence anyway. How would you say "We all" as
> a subject?
> --nachHegh
> [email protected]
Grammarians have the more significant word, but since I
brought this up, I'd tend to either say, "We must drop blood on
our dictionaries," or "Everyone must drop blood on their
dictionaries." Either choice would be simple and carry your
meaning sufficiently. Another option might be:
ghomlIjDaq 'Iw yIchagh 'e' chaq HochvaD wIraDnIS
It is somewhat twisted and indirect, perhaps. Maybe TOO
twisted? On my own, I would have assumed that if I said that we
must do something, then that applies to all of us.
charghwI'