Re: My two cents
Saul Epstein 
Tue, 7 Jul 1998 16:20:13 -0500

From: Rob Zook <rzook*informix,com>
Date: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 3:46 PM


>At 02:14 PM 7/7/98 -0500, Steven Boozer wrote:
>
>>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 :)


Well, this is one of those places where a little flexibility can be
used for effect. I'm reminded of part of Eliot's "Ash Wednesday," in
which the speaker consists of his scattered bones, the rest of him
having been eaten by leopards. But, in any case, <th'ra' srikhra'>
would not mean "my two cents," but "we two cents." Maybe.

>>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'.

The insertion/deletion/preservation of <'> is inconsistent (or
inadequately explained) throughout our primary sources...


>>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.

Except that we are given the rule that <X Y> and <XY> imply <X'at Y>,
or "X's Y." <th'srikhra'at> would then be "of my two cents."

>So I would think that:
>
><th'srikhra'>
><th'srikhra'at>
><th'at srikhra'>
>
>would all seem roughly equivalent.


You can try thinking of 'at as as apostraphe-S -- except that the
pronouns mutate, so it's "my" instead of "I's."

--
from Saul Epstein
locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus
"Surakri' ow'phatsur the's'hi the's'tca'; the's'pharka
    the's'hi suraketca'."
                                        -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at