tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 26 05:40:39 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: loQ jIDachlaw'lI' (KLBC)

• From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
• Subject: Re: loQ jIDachlaw'lI' (KLBC)
• Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 07:43:53 -0500

voqHa'wI' writes:
>Damn, I don't like to disagree with the experts, and you ARE the expert at
>the moment, but shouldn't we pluralise the word {latlh} for this? I mean,
>we want {other ones, additional ones}, rather than the singular, qar'a'?

Sure, but the *lack* of a plural suffix doesn't mean it must be singular.
If the plurality is adequately conveyed by other context, the suffix is
redundant.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

• Prev by Date: Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
• Next by Date: Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
• Prev by thread: Re: loQ jIDachlaw'lI' (KLBC)
• Next by thread: KLBC: How long have we been learning?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level