Given that the prefix is {wI-} and not {DI-}, we know that we are speaking of a single cat.
It is confusing that English uses “only” sometimes to mean “exclusively”, and other times to mean “merely”, and Okrand chose to use the word “only” instead of sticking to the more specific “exclusively” or “merely”. It means that we can’t be sure whether the canon examples intentionally or accidentally suggest different meaning depending on whether it follows nouns or verbs.
SuStel appropriately assumes it was intentional, since there are apparently no contradictory examples in canon to suggest otherwise, leaving us with a little extra work to do if we want to convey the meaning we don’t have an example for in canon.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
Wouldn’t <vIghro’ tIQ wIjon neH [‘e’] DaneH> be “you want that we just capture the/a ancient cat(s)”?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 10, 2020, at 08:00, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Another good question (of the ones which have no answer..)
If we can say:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' neH DaSaH
you only care that we capture the ancient cat
Then why couldn't we say as well:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon neH DaneH
you only want that we capture the ancient cat
~ qa'yIn
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.orghttp://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org