tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 05 06:43:59 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Did Hoch, now pagh...
From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> 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...":
Ah, I see. Hmm, yes, that would seem to make sense, in that it parallels
the possible {X Hoch} idea. It's all REALLY thin reasoning, though. *I*
would accept these constructions, but I cannot say they're right.
SuStel
Stardate 4176.9
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}
![[Hol po'wI']](/pics/level3_big.png "[Hol po'wI']"){kind=small}