Re: qep'a' pa' qoch vInej

["Lieven L. Litaer" <lieven@handshake.de>]

jIgher:
> {Hu'} is to me a noun, meaning "days ago"
> {vagh leS}, "five days-ago's"
> {wa'leS} was used so often in daily use, that it became one word.
This is only speculativ, what I think, not what MO has said.
It's just my opinion, my way of explaining.

ghItlh peHruS:
>But, canon from TKD p. 82 indicates that {cha'Hu'} and
>{cha'leS} are one word each, also.
Well, then I should have added it to my explanations.

I believe this is like english "times". It says once, twice, and even
thrice, but not *fource* or *fice*. It's four times, five times. One says
"sometimes", but not *notimes* (never).

>What evidence do you have from canon that any number used
>with the "nouns" {Hu'} and {leS} should not also be one word each?
None. I think there even isn't any rule at all that tells us how to use it,
is there?

>I have seen the number and these two "nouns" written
>separately only by users of this listserv.
Look at p. 90 which gives us {Hu'} as a noun! And nouns can be counted.

P.S. I don't want to convice you of my opinion, nor do I want to argue with
you. I just want to talk about it. ;-)

Quvar muHwI'