Re: 'together vs. to gather'

--- Philippe Caquant <herodote92@...>
wrote:

> Those glyphs are nice, but one needs some
> Talarian
> culture to understand them at once, I think.
The glyph on the left is a representation of a
man putting something on a table (for someone
else to take); the other is a man reaching out to
accept something. A certain number of Talarian
glyphs were borrowed from one of the major
philosophical languages in the region, Anian, who
got them in ages past from the Daine of the
southlands who write with pictures of little
people and animals and objects. Kind of halfway
between Chinese and Mayan.

> Yes, I think that there is a plural in them
> because
> instinctively one feels to draw several arrows,
> and
> not just one. You would never instinctively
> draw
> several arrows for a concept like "to go",
Why not?

It's an interesting system you're devising. I
just don't understand any verb to have an
inherent number; and I don't understand why
having multiple arrows should necessarily
indicate number.

> Thinking about dust, I came to the conclusion
> that if
> there is something like "dust gathering"
> without any reference to plural
I think of dust as a mass noun, so no reference
to number is made.

Padraic.



=====
â-dim peresatî Zarathustrô: ko-nare ahî?  yim azem vîshpahe a&#331;hêuš
astvatô sraêštem dâdaresa.

â-dim prcchat Jarathustrah: ko nara asi? yam aham vî&#347;vasya âsoh
asthivatah &#347;restham dadar&#347;a.

ççoç peparcti Çaratostariyyas: his hanaras ossta? icom acâ,
alohostanoççexomes, takam maxamâsanar a-hawisesâ.
    -- Yasna ix

--

Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>


Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>







.