tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 10 10:55:45 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: no'
Obviously, the INFORMATIVE part of this is that {no'} is grammatically
singular, not plural. Okrand was explaining why this is {yIquvmoH} and not
{tIquvmoH}. It says nothing about whether or not the direct object of
{yIquvmoH} is considered to be capable of using language. Replace {no'} with
{qorDu'} and you have a better parallel, since English has a singular noun
representing the group "family", while we lack a singular noun representing
the group "ancestors".
charghwI' 'utlh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:26 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: no'
>
>
> ja' Voragh:
> >Uninformative, but here's Okrand's commentary:
> >
> > "{yIquvmoH}, 'Honor them!' (actually, this is 'Honor him/her!'; the
> > inherently plural noun {no'}, ancestors, takes a singular pronoun)"
> > (KGT p.178)
>
> It's not uninformative. It gives a translation using "him/her" instead of
> "it", clearly implying that {no'} is people.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
>
>