tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 23 07:09:48 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lommey (story, part 9)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 02:07:45 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>
>In a message dated 96-12-22 20:58:39 EST, the author of "lommey" writes:
>
><< > SuStel, reH maQochbe'laH. tlhIngan tighmey DIHaDnIStaH. >>
>
>Although you got {lommey} right, as opposed to the incorrect {lomDu'},
>because the corpse is no longer a sentient being, I question the use of
This actually was mentioned ages and ages back, I recall. You have some
confusion here, since the "-Du'" suffix does not bear on sentience or
non-sentience; I presume you mean "-pu'", right? Take a look at
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/1994/Nov94/0031.html... hrm. I know it was
discussed in more detail... Aha. Look at
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/1995/Nov95/0503.html and the resulting
discussion. I see it was started by you, peHruS, even then. So you'll
find your comments (those from you and those in answer to you) in the
archives.
>{tIghmey}. Shouldn't that be an inherent plural? Therefore, I suggest
>{tIgh} as sufficient.
He probably would have translated it as "customs" if he meant it to be an
inherent plural. He generally does. "Custom" *is* a count-noun; it's
possible to talk of only one custom. Of course, you can always use the
unmarked noun as a plural, but that's not what you mean, is it?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMr6gt8ppGeTJXWZ9AQFMAAL/fR9MJYmHjElAFMKdPy9IJDOJxagsakIS
9g57tEduSszJ25ZcVeK4gJF0mkcVaxWgiqbHgCgagP57TyKPxVEBxw/T+WLO8VLQ
A86Yc5mxLxTXgS3aqzbm34J/+pINL6yF
=Zuxj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----