tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 10 10:07:57 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Prefix and noun agreement (was: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu})

Robyn Stewart ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

quSDaq bIba'. mu'ghomDaq tu'lu'mo' teH 'e' wISov.

At 09:50 AM 12/10/2007, you wrote:
>In a message dated 12/10/2007 10:03:42 AM Central Standard Time,
>[email protected] writes:
>
> > On the other hand, one might conclude that since {no'} "ancestors"
> > refers to a plural noun, *{no'wI' chaH no'lI''e'} must be fine; it makes
> > perfect sense. However, it's wrong: the correct sentence is {no'wI' ghaH
> > no'lI''e'} "your ancestors are my ancestors," however weird that looks.
> > (This came up on the MUSH the other day.) It doesn't make sense, but
> > that's the way it is.
> >
>
>This is explicitly stated in TKD 3.3.2:
>   Inherently plural nouns are treated grammatically as singu-
>lar nouns in that singular pronouns are used to refer to them
>(sections 4.1, 5.1). For example, in the sentence {cha yIghuS}
><Stand by torpedoes!> or <Get the torpedoes ready to be fired!> the
>verb prefix {yI-,} an imperative prefix used for singular objects,
>must be used even though the object ({cha} <torpedoes>) has a
>plural meaning.
>
>lay'tel SIvten   </HTML>

Back to archive top level