tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 11 08:11:55 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

DloraH ([email protected])

• From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:11:35 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Thread-index: AcZdWkVvgXO1Ppo9QzqvpVs2EzCW5QAH2RYg

> >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.

Actually... we don't know if there are ONLY TWO people.  Because plural
suffixes are optional, either or both /be'nal/ and /SuvwI'/ can be plural.
This could be "wives and warriors".  Context would tell.


DloraH

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
    • From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
    • From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: mangpu' or negh?
• 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