On 9/27/2019 10:03 AM, Hugh Son puqloD wrote:
On Sep 27, 2019, at 07:55, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 9/27/2019 7:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Since we don't know, what exactly a {petaQ} or a {yIntagh} is, I know that probably there's no answer.
But I wonder..
How would you pluralize the {petaQ}, {yIntagh}, {toDSaH}, etc ?
Would you use {-pu'} or {-mey} ?
/paq'batlh/ has *petaQmey,* referring to people.
But what if they were just scattered all about? Within the context of the paq'batlh verse, I don’t think such a reading is excluded:
nItlhejbogh petaQmey tInuD chaHvaD nIb yan wIjwI' jan je
There's also zero evidence that the beings referred to are scattered about, and the "assembled warriors" are "at your side," addressing Molor. Impossible to be scattered? No, but not very likely either. Almost any plural could be imagined to be "scattered" if you try hard enough. What this quote doesn't do is prove that you /must/ insult the *petaQ* you're addressing by referring to them as things; it just seems that Molor happens to do so. It seems obvious that insulting someone with *petaQ* might lead you to further insult them by implying they're things instead of people, so saying *petaQmey* instead of *petaQpu'* might be common, but we have no data to support that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name