tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 17 09:13:51 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: "to be" and plurals

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: "to be" and plurals
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:19:43 -0500 (EST)
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
• User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.6

> > Maori chaH 'op no'Daj'e'.
> 
> I've always wondered about this.  Since inherently plural nouns are
> treated, grammatically, as singular, you might expect this to be
> 
> Maori ghaH 'op no'Daj'e'
> 
> but that seems a bit ridiculous, at least to my linguistic biases.

I thought about this when I was writing it.
But I was wonder, about this and similar sentences,  what happens when you add 
a number type element?

cha 'oH.
wej cha 'oH/bIH.  ?

Because if you merely used the number in place of the noun, which is allowed,
wej bIH.  ?


DloraH

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: "to be" and plurals
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • RE: munuQ
    • From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
  • "to be" and plurals
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: KLBC ["be healthy"]
• Next by Date: Re: KLBC holy
• Prev by thread: "to be" and plurals
• Next by thread: Re: "to be" and plurals
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level