Re: My two cents
Rob Zook 
Tue, 07 Jul 1998 15:30:22 -0500

At 02:14 PM 7/7/98 -0500, Steven Boozer wrote:
<snip>
>You're right, the dual is required here.  We can also say <th'ra(')
>srikhra(')>.  

I don't think that's right, that would mean literally "I-two cents-two".
That doesn't sound right unless one is schizophrenic with multiple
personalities :)


>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 ['].

I would say this is a typo and should probably be s'ro'.


>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?

That probably should read as <th'srikhra'at> which is a way we've
been simplifying possession. Unless <pronoun>+<entity> might be unambiguous
enough to imply possession all by itself. I don't think <th'srikhra'>
"I cents-2" would make much sense otherwise.

So I would think that:

<th'srikhra'>
<th'srikhra'at>
<th'at srikhra'>

would all seem roughly equivalent.


Rob Z.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony, anyway?  I mean, 
all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good 
and crazy, ooh ooh ooh, the sky's the limit! -- The Tick