SuStel:
using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit
What does this mean ? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not contradicting you on this matter. I genuinely don't understand what this sentence means. qunnoq On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:38 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/1/2017 3:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If we wanted to specifically express the "many others", i think it would be better to just write {latlh law'}. In this construction the meaning remains the same, without "tiring" the reader by making him read two "plurals" in a row.
I think you're really just reacting to the fact that the plural suffix is optional. I sometimes point out where plural suffixes can be dropped for stylistic reasons, but using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit. I too would probably say latlh law' instead of latlhpu' law' most of the time, but I would only call this out where I feel a stylistic improvement could be made. But I disagree that latlhpu' law' can be reduced to latlhpu' without changing the meaning. Sometimes the presence or lack of law' may not make a difference to the overall meaning, but this won't always be true.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org