tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 04 22:31:44 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Did Hoch, now pagh...

...Paul ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, David Trimboli wrote:
> I'm pretty sure we have no data regarding any difference between, say, {pagh
> jagh} and {pagh jaghpu'}.  It might be the difference between "no enemy" and
> "no group of enemies," but that's just guessing.  We also have no reason to
> suspect that {pagh} is meaningful after a noun.  {pagh}is a number and a
> noun.  It is not a verb, and thus does not modify nouns adjectivally.

But could it make some sense in a noun-noun construction sense?

For example, would it make any sense to say */Daj Hol pagh/ to mean
"Nothing of language is interesting"?  /Daj pagh Hol/ would be "No
language is interesting," but if the context was that you were discussing
a particular language, would the former make some sense?

I know there's no canon for it, but this seems to work really well,
allowing us to say "everything about..." or "nothing about...":

Daj Hoch Hol  -- All languages are interesting.
Daj Hoch Holmey -- Every language is interesting (okay, bad example)
* Daj Hol Hoch  -- Everything of (about) the language is interesting.
Daj pagh Hol  -- No languages are interesting.
* Daj Hol pagh  -- Nothing of (about) the language is interesting.

Is there another way to convey this idea of "all of" or "none of" that
just isn't occurring to me at this point, or could this be a legitimate
way of doing that?

...Paul

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
            "This above all:  to thine own self be true"
                    -- Hamlet, Act I, Scene III

Back to archive top level