tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 28 21:52:53 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pagh (was latlh)
On Fri, 28 Apr 1995, yoDtargh wrote:
> But if I wanted to say "no or zero ancestors", it would be {pagh no'}
> because numbers precede the noun they modify.
So, what I get from this whole discussion is:
pagh no' - no ancestors
no' pagh - none of the ancestors
no'lI' pagh - none of your ancestors
pagh no'lI' - your (theoretical, but non-existant) ancestors
I know that although grammatically correct, the last sentence doesn't
make any sense. After all, how is it possible to not have ancestors?
And why would any sane Klingon even talk about something that doesn't
exist? These are, however, the translations for these phrases, qar'a'?
janSIy