tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 10 06:06:42 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: jabbI'IDwIj wa'DIch
According to Alan Anderson:
>
...
> I need some opinions from the list at large here -- can locatives be
> conjoined like this?
>
> >wa'Hu' Hamlet vIHev. paqwIj 'oH cha'vatlh cha'maH cha'.
>
> Again, I'm uncomfortable with this use of {'oH}. I think it's backwards.
I can see it either way, depending on the focus intended. I
judge it just because of the required topicalizer {-'e'}. The
part I want to stress is the one I usually put last. If you
mean, "MY book is number two hundred twenty two," then I'd
choose ghunchu'wI''s example below. If the intent is, "My book
is number two hundred twenty TWO," then I'd use a modified
version of the original. Modifications include a noun for the
numbers to refer to and the {-'e'}.
You can use a number as a noun, but the only canon we have for
that is for numbers uses as quantity, not as a lable. "How many
dilithium crystals do you want?" "I want four." "What room are
you staying in?" "I'm staying in room four." It would not be
okay to say, "I'm staying in four." That would indicate that I
was staying in four rooms, not room number four.
> You certainly need to put {-'e'} on the subject, and I think you need to
> have something else for the number to attach to.
> Maybe {paq cha'vatlh cha'maH cha' 'oH paqwIj'e'}.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |