tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 10 10:02:33 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pabpo'na'vo': HoD Qanqor 'e' vInuD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:47:01 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>
>In a message dated 97-01-09 19:09:01 EST, HurghwI' writes:
>
><< >Why can't you say <mulegh SuvwI'pu'vetlh cha'>? This seems to make more
> >sense, and it can be used effectively anywhere. Is there a restriction on
> >this that I missed?
>
> Just realized, that's "those two warriors," but I've thought of something
> else. Technically, can't this also mean "the two of those warriors?" In
> other words, can't the meaning depend entirely on interpretation?
> >>
> No, mulegh SuvwI'pu'vetlh cha' does not mean "those two warriors." For
>that, the number, cha', must come before the noun, SuvwI'pu'. Therefor, it
>can only mean "those warriors numbered two," or, voila, "two of those
>warriors."
Huh? I was with you until the last sentence. When a cardinal number
follows a noun, it has ordinal sense: canon {DuS wa'} is "torperdo tube
#1", not "one torpedo tube." The "number" is not a reference to how many
there are, but a specification of which one. "SuvwI' cha'" is "Warrior
Number Two" (perhaps in a play where there are a few minor characters who
don't get names). {SuvwI'pu' cha'} would presumably be "Warriors #2", as
in maybe a second squad of them.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMtaEH8ppGeTJXWZ9AQEJVQL8D5uqo9AA4jaGq4n1OJ49faE8XjDOVlpl
4rKMWd5a+j2CN2zqO8S4AEUmKHC+7xX24GY4SaZHmNjTDO8WPvyd/ZFq/gx+g49g
pf6/+HE07yka7lSwFPKmFR7UB0zscMSL
=67Q3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----