tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 25 21:01:31 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Connecticut qepHom
ja' peHruS:
><< Daj ghu'. qepHomwIjDaq jeS wa' -- wa'vetlh jIH. >>
>
>I am wondering about this use of {wa'vetlh}, which I have never seen nor even
>thought about before. Although I clearly understand the meaning as "And I
>was that one," I would have expected {'ej nuvvetlh jIH'e'}.
You've probably never seen or thought about {mavjopchaj} either, but I'd
certainly expect you to understand it clearly as well. They definitely
follow the grammar as we know it.
>Notice that I have added the N5 '{-e'} to {jIH} deliberately.
You say you did it on purpose, but I can't figure out *why* you did it.
{jIH} is acting as a verb in this sentence, and may take "appropriate"
verbal suffixes (TKD 6.3, p 68). However, {-'e'} is a *noun* suffix.
>OTOH, TKD does say that numbers may act as Nouns (p54). Without further
>evidence contradicting the above usage, why not put Noun Suffixes on numbers?
I'm confused -- that's exactly what I did do. What contradictory evidence
are you thinking of, and which "above usage" is it contradicting, yours or
mine?
-- ghunchu'wI'