Two Cents (Part 9 Re: New project) Saul Epstein Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:32:17 -0600 0516 - My two cents Steven Boozer Tue, 7 Jul 1998 14:14:42 -0500 (CDT) : Quotes from: Steven Boozer : : >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 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 . 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 wrong for another reason? "my, mine", "your", etc. are given as separate words in ZC, while , , etc. are used for conjugating verbs and also numbers. "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. ---------- 0517 - 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: >You're right, the dual is required here. We can also say 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 wrong for another reason? "my, mine", > "your", etc. are given as separate words in ZC, while >, , etc. are used for conjugating verbs and also numbers. > "This (precious) blood of my friends". >Or have I misread Marketa here? That probably should read as which is a way we've been simplifying possession. Unless + might be unambiguous enough to imply possession all by itself. I don't think "I cents-2" would make much sense otherwise. So I would think that: would all seem roughly equivalent. ---------- 0518 - Re: My two cents Saul Epstein Tue, 7 Jul 1998 16:20:13 -0500 From: Rob Zook 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 >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, 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 wrong for another reason? "my, mine", >> "your", etc. are given as separate words in ZC, while , >>, etc. are used for conjugating verbs and also numbers. >t'hyle'at i-plaplak> "This (precious) blood of my friends". Or have >>I misread Marketa here? > >That probably should read as which is a way we've >been simplifying possession. Unless + might be >unambiguous enough to imply possession all by itself. I don't think > "I cents-2" would make much sense otherwise. Except that we are given the rule that and imply , or "X's Y." would then be "of my two cents." >So I would think that: > > > > > >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." ---------- End Part 9 -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus "Surakri' ow'phacur the's'hi the's'cha'; the's'pharka the's'hi surakecha'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at