tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 16 22:21:54 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Interesting constuct...

In a message dated 96-04-16 23:56:46 EDT, peSHIr wrote:

>With paghlogh probably meaning something like "zero times" (according to
>context something like "never", "not", or "don't", as in {paghlogh vIlegh} =
>"I've never seen him" or {paghlogh yIqIp} = "Don't hit hem!", even though
>{net} or {Qo'} would probably be much more natural in these cases) we are
>then still left with the meaning for the following words:
>
>paghDIch   = zeroth? ;-)
>paghleS    = synonym for today?
>paghHu'    = synonym for today as well?
>paghben    = synonym for today? for this year?
>
>Or would these be considered nonsense, even though actually grammatical? I
>wonder...?

Grammatical yes.  Redundant too.  Although I have no way to prove it, I would
imagine that using {pagh} in these ways would only occur (if at all) when one
was specifically emphasizing the number of times (etc) that these things
occurred.  For example, one can always say {DaHjaj puq vIlegh} "I see the
child today,"  but imagine the following conversation:

jatlh tlhIngan wa'DIch: Hu' 'ar puq Dalegh?  wej?  loS?
("How many days ago did you see the child?  Three?  Four?")

jang tlhIngan cha'DIch: ghobe'.  paghHu' puq vIlegh.
("No.  I saw the child zero days ago.")

The last sentence would work as {DaHjaj puq vIlegh}, but you would lose some
of the emphasis of the answer.

Note that I could be completely wrong about all of this.  Feel free to put me
in my place.

SuStel
Hovjaj 96293.5

Back to archive top level