tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 18 00:34:06 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Adam Snyder wrote:
> >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
> --- loD Doq
<yaS vIlegh jIH> can both mean <I see the officer> as well as <I see the officers>, since the prefix *vI* indicates third person
singular objects like *him,her,it* as well as third person plural object *them*.
following TKD page 21:
Unlike English, however, the lack of a specific suffix
for plural does not always indicate that the noun is
so...both translations are correct and one can only know from context if one is talking about one or more officers. of course it
would be correct to add a plural suffix to *yaS* to get <yaSpu' vIlegh jIH> which would then mean <I see the officers> and only
- Re: TKD
- From: "Adam Snyder" <email@example.com>