tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 30 18:07:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pagh (was latlh)
On Sun, 30 Apr 1995, Jeremy Cowan wrote:
> 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.
I knew that {pagh} mean "zero" and was a conjunction, but I forgot the
third definition of {pagh} which is "nothing" or "none". I totally
screwed up. Your listing of the various combinations using {pagh} is
correct.
Hagh qoHpu' neH HIvDI' veqlargh.
> But pagh is also a noun meaning none. My post was really asking about
> how to distinguish the two and how they relate.
{no'lI' pagh} is somewhat ambiguous since it could either mean "none of
your ancesters" or "your ancestors No. 0".
However, when you number objects, you normally start with 1 and count up
from there. Since saying "something number zero" would be pretty rare, I
think it would be unlikely that your meaning would be misinterpreted if
you said {X pagh} to mean "none of X". On the other hand, you do have the
option of saying {pagh X} to mean "zero X's" or "no X's".
>janSIy
yoDtargh