tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 29 19:50:28 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ta

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: ta
• Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:50:20 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

ja' QeS lagh:
>
>> "Fortunately for students of Klingon, it
>> is never incorrect to add a plural suffix to a noun referring to more
>> than one entity. Even in those cases where it is unneccessary to do
>> so."
>>
>
> "Even in those cases where it is unnecessary"... could that be  
> referring to
> inherently plural nouns like {cha}, {ngop} and {negh} (thus ?? 
> {chamey},
> ??{neghpu'})?

No.  Adding a plural suffix to those nouns *is* incorrect, the word  
"never" notwithstanding.

What that phrase is talking about is cases where the plural nature is  
clear from other context, e.g. the use of the verb prefix {DI-} or a  
"counting" number before the noun.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ta
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: ta
    • From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: ta
• Next by Date: Re: ta
• Previous by thread: Re: ta
• Next by thread: Re: ta
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level