tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 30 08:48:42 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: latlh
According to R.B Franklin:
>
> {Hoch} is a noun. {pagh} is a number. Their use is somewhat different.
While everything else said here is accurate, {pagh} has TWO
listings in TKD. One is a number and the other is a noun. If it
is being used to mean "nothing, none" (might he have meant
"no one/nobody"?), then it is to be used as a noun without
reference to its useage as a nunber.
> In PK, there is the phrase:
> {targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS.}
> ("My targ has a bigger brain than all of your ancestors put together.")
>
> Here {no'lI' Hoch} means "all of your ancesters". In this noun-noun
> construction, {Hoch} follows the noun. But if I wanted to say "no or zero
> ancestors", it would be {pagh no'} because numbers precede the noun they
> modify.
Okay, I'm going to work hard coming up with an exception here.
I want to tell you that you are to touch nothing belonging to
my ancestors. no'wI' pagh yIHot! I know that it could mean
"Touch my ancestor #0," but here I think we have to trust that
my meaning is apparent enough to cover the ambiguity.
> yoDtargh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |