tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 02 09:21:05 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
pagh no'lI' (was: Re: pagh (was latlh))
- From: [email protected] (Steve Weaver)
- Subject: pagh no'lI' (was: Re: pagh (was latlh))
- Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 12:21:11 -0500
On Sat, 29 Apr 1995 01:08:52 -0400 ghItlh janSIy:
>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.
<....snip...>
>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'?
IF you were "bragging" about your ancestors, I might make reference to
{pagh no'lI'} as an insult. How does our resident Curse Warefare expert
feel about this:
targhlIj yab tIn law' pagh no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS
~mark??
-------------------------------------------------
vIta'pu'be' !!! tlhIngan ghaH *Bart Simpson*'e'
Steve Weaver [email protected]