On Jan 6, 2022, at 9:00 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:_______________________________________________On 1/6/2022 8:09 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
De'vID:QInvam luHevpu''a' latlh? pIm'a' QIn?*Spam*Daq tetlhvam lulochbogh HochHom QIn'e' vIHev, Landau Martin je QInmey vIHev je. pImbe'. By the way, two short questions: 1. Should *HochHom QIn* be considered singular or plural?Unclear. We might suppose that HochHom X follows the same rule as Hoch X: including a plural suffix means to take most of the X's as a whole, while leaving off a plural suffix means to take most of the X's individually. I would guess, in that case, that the plurality of the phrase depends on whether there is a plural suffix. But we don't know for sure if HochHom follows the same rule; I suggest it only as a default position to take.
2. I guess there is nothing wrong with *(noun noun je) + noun* as a noun-noun construction? Are there canonical examples?Nothing wrong with it. A canonical example comes from paq'batlh:
vaSvamDaq
tuq veng je quvvaD
Heghqangbogh SuvwI' tu'be'lu''a'Is there nobody in this hall
Prepared to die for the honor
Of your tribe and city?-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org