Re: TKD

["Adam Snyder" <asnyder@nycap.rr.com>]

>>SIbI' mu'ghomraj tISuq Hoch. (I don't know how to say "page" so I'll say
>><paqHom>) paqHom vaghmaH cha' yIlaD. 
>
>nav is closer. Not perfect, but closer than paqHom.
>I think of paqHom as being something like HolQeD.

Okay, thank you.

>>I'm sure someone has asked this before, but humor me:
>>
>>In the first example, it says <yaS vIlegh jIH> with the translation "I
see
>>the officers". qatlh <yaS> jatlh? Qagh 'oH?
>
>?? "why say <officer>?" ??
>uh, yaS is defined as officer.

Duh (politely)

>I see the officers - yaS vIlegh jIH
>I see the knives - taj vIlegh jIH
>
>If I didn't say yaS ...
>vIlegh jIH - I see him.
>Him who?
>The officer; yaS

I know...

>Or are you refering to being plural?
>Read TKD page 22

Of course I was referring to being plural! 
The example on p. 22 only works because <maH> is inherrently plural, so the
plurality of <yaS> is implied. However if <yaS> is a direct object then
it's plurality is not implied. <yaS vIlegh jIH> means "I see the officer"
and only that. Page twenty-two has absolutely nothing to do with this
instance. 

--- loD Doq