SuStel:
But based on *TKD*, *wanI'vam lajQo'* *> wa'* probably means *one (of them) won't* *> accept this event*—in other words, it presupposes the listener already knows about a group, out of which you're singling one.
I understand. now that you mention it, the idea for using the {wa'} this way, came from the canon example {wa' yIHoH}, which talks about singling one out of a group. thank you for explaining this ! qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 9 Nov 2016 7:59 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/9/2016 10:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
wanI'vam lajlu'Qo
I wrote this in order to say "someone refuses to accept this event".
Could I write instead {wanI'vam lajQo' wa'} ? Can the {wa'}, "stand alone" in order to mean "one person/someone" ?
Yes. See *TKD *5.2: "Numbers are used as nouns. As such, they may stand alone as subjects or objects or they may modify another noun." But based on *TKD*, *wanI'vam lajQo' wa'* probably means *one (of them) won't accept this event*—in other words, it presupposes the listener already knows about a group, out of which you're singling one. It's not the same as *vay'* or *-lu'*.
I think *wanI'vam lajlu'Qo'* is the superior sentence, and better translated *this event won't be accepted.*
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org