tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 30 16:42:02 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: pagh (was latlh)

• From: Jeremy Cowan <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: pagh (was latlh)
• Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 18:40:41 -0500 (CDT)
• In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9504292341.A13906-0100000@netcom16>

On Sun, 30 Apr 1995, yoDtargh wrote:
> I was explaining why I thought your translation {no' pagh} and {no'lI' 
> pagh} was incorrect by demonstrating how Section 5.2 says numbers are 
> to be used.

But pagh is also a noun meaning none.  My post was really asking about 
how to distinguish the two and how they relate.

janSIy

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: pagh (was latlh)
    • From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: pagh (was latlh)
    • From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: "too many"
• Next by Date: Re: latlh
• Prev by thread: Re: pagh (was latlh)
• Next by thread: Re: pagh (was latlh)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level