tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 11 18:55:03 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:54:54 -0800
At 23:31 97-12-10 -0800, SuStel wrote:
}>At 12:07 97-12-09 -0800, Doneq wrote:
}>}wa'Hu', mu'ghomHomwIj vIghItlhta'. mu'tay' Hoch ngaS 'e' vIHar.
}>
}>{mu'tay' naQ} - the entire vocabulary
}>{Hoch mu'tay'} - every vocabulary
}>{Hoch mu'tay'mey} - all the vocabularies
}>
}>I think you want {naQ}.
}
}Not necessarily. {mu'tay' naQ} refers to a vocabulary which has the quality
}of being whole. (As a test, would you want to say {naQbogh mu'tay'}?) This
}*could* be what Doneq wants to say, but there is also evidence to support
}his construction.
}
}KGT p. 155: {nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'} "All the fuel has been consumed." It is
}not {nIn naQ}. (Though there could be differences in that fuel is not
}something with pre-defined portions.)
}
}{mu'tay' naQ} "the vocabulary which is whole"
}{mu'tay' Hoch} "all of the vocabulary"
}{Hoch mu'tay'} "every vocabulary"
}{Hoch mu'tay'mey} "all of the vocabularies"
}
}If I had been writing this sentence, I would have used {mu'tay' Hoch} also.
}(Though I would have used {-law'}, too: {mu'tay' Hoch ngaSlaw'}.)
lugh SuStel. qaq mu'tlhegh chupbogh.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian