tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 11 04:29:59 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal

Thorwald Peeters ([email protected])

• From: "Thorwald Peeters" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:29:43 -0000 (GMT)
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.5

<citaat van="QeS 'utlh">

>>Strictly, {luHoHlu'}, because {be'nal SuvwI' je} is plural.
> mujang Shane MiQogh, ja':
>>how so?
> Because you're talking about two people: {be'nal} "the wife" and {SuvwI'}
> "the warrior". The conjunction {je} makes the two nouns behave as one
> large noun phrase.

I know it is not always good to do so, but in this case, compare many an
earth language (as I'm more familiar with Germanic, I'll use that:

"the woman and warrior are being killed" vs. "the woman is being killed"
and "the warrior is being killed"

Thorwald Peeters
a.k.a. qa'pIn qorghon puqloD, q'meQ tuq
a.k.a. SoplaHtaHwI'
yuch betleH 'obe' la'quv

• References:
  • Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
    • From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Next by Date: Re: mangpu' or negh?
• Previous by thread: RE: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Next by thread: RE: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level