tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 09 15:09:45 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: math questions / speculations (longish)
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: math questions / speculations (longish)
- Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 17:09:38 CDT
ja' De'vID
> >I stand by my statement that /cha' boq wa'. mI'vam boq wej./
> >represents 3 + (1 + 2).
>
with two caveats (I hope I'm using this word correctly) I agree:
one, I think you should use {chenwI'} or {chenbogh mI'} instead
of just {mI'vam}; and two, whether you write
(1+2) + 3
(2+1) + 3
3 + (1+2)
3 + (2+1)
it's all the same.
i.e. what I agree on with you, are the parentheses.
(and I think ghunchu'wI' would agree here too, or wouldn't he?)
ja' ghunchu'wI'
> I disagree completely. Again, consider subtraction. The subject of the
> verb {boqHa'} is what *leaves* the alliance; there can be no argument on
> that point. That's a pretty strong indication that the subject of {boq} is
> what *joins* an alliance.
>
wa' Doch wIqIp, ghunchu'wI' jIH je.
now, what do you think (anyone who is reading this) about
boqchuq wa', cha' je.
if you think this means 1+2 (or 2+1 if you insist), then what about
boqchuq wa', cha', wej je.
are there any examples of -chuq with more than two subject components?
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]