My two cents
Steven Boozer 
Tue, 7 Jul 1998 14:14:42 -0500 (CDT)

: Quotes from: Steven Boozer <sboozer*midway,uchicago,edu>
: 
: >Well, that's my two cents worth--or should I say, {th'at ra' srikhe}?
: >
: >On second thought, should that be {th'at ra' srikhe} with srikh in  the
: >plural {-e} following "two" {ra'}, or {th'at srikhra} with srikh in the
: >dual?  Is the dual required or optional for two items?
: 
: As I read it, the ZC seems to imply that the plural is only for groups
: of more than five, so the dual would be required for two. Which means
: you could even say <th'srikhra'> for "my two cents." I had forgotten
: about the dual, trial, etc.; I've probably done that wrong in
: places...
: 
: from Saul Epstein

You're right, the dual is required here.  We can also say <th'ra(')
srikhra(')>.  The version of the ZC I have is inconsistent WRT the final [']
on these suffixal forms:

    s'ro' qomiro' brax imroykah   "you-three-humans walk-fast"

    s'ro qomiro'ong W~l'q'n'ong   "you three humans and a Vulcan"
 
Is this simply a typo, or do the numbers 2-4 lose the glottal stop when
suffixed?  Does it reappear when another suffix beginning with a vowel is
added?  There are several examples of intervocalic ['].

Isn't <th'srikhra'> wrong for another reason?  <th'at> "my, mine", <s'at>
"your", etc. are given as separate words in ZC, while <th'->, <s'->, etc.
are used for conjugating verbs and also numbers.  <th'at t'hyle'at
i-plaplak> "This (precious) blood of my friends".  Or have I misread Marketa
here?

BTW, is there a clean, well-formatted, proof-read copy of the ZC online
somewhere?  The one I found is riddled with typos, mis-spellings, minor
English grammar errors and bizarre line divisions.  If there isn't,
producing one should be a top priority.
 
 
_____________________________________________________________________
Steven Boozer   University of Chicago Library   s-boozer*uchicago,edu