tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 20 19:56:42 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 22:58:20 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:05:08 -0700 (PDT) "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
> >
> >>> Which is correct?
> >>> cha' wISop
> >>> cha' DISop
> >
> >cha' here is the word two - but we don't yet know if cha', acting as a
> >noun, is inherently singular or plural. So to say "We eat two", one of
> >these is right, but we have no idea which yet.
>
> p.54 of TKD seems to imply it should be {cha' DISop}.
>
> ~mark
While I would LIKE to use {cha' DISop}, page 54 gives me no
certainty of this. The examples are:
mulegh cha' - where the prefix tells us nothing because either a
plural or singular third person subject gives us {mu-}.
wa' yIHoH - where the prefix tells us nothing because the object
is singular.
So, why does this indicate to you that a number greater than one
used as a noun does not follow the rule that inherantly plural
nouns are treated grammatically as singular? It is a conclusion
I'd like to see proved because I like it, but so far I have
found no such proof.
charghwI'