tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 06 12:03:33 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 Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Alan Anderson wrote:
> ja' SuStel:
> >Ah, I see.  Hmm, yes, that would seem to make sense, in that it parallels
> >the possible {X Hoch} idea.
>
> {X Hoch} isn't just possible.  It's authoritatively correct.
>
> KGT page 155:
>   nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu' "All the fuel has been consumed."

WOOT!  Okay, so, to recap, we have:

Hoch <foo> == "Every <foo>"
Hoch <foo>[mey|pu'|Du'] == "All <foo>"
<foo> Hoch == "All of <foo>"
pagh <foo> == "No <foo>", "Zero <foo>"

And possibly:

<foo> pagh == "None of <foo>" -- or "<foo> Zero"

But this may be clear in context:

/SID pagh/ might be "none of the patient" or "patient zero", but
/SIDpu' pagh/ is likely best translated as "none of the patients".

I'd venture to conjecture that if /pagh/ is the second part of a noun-noun
construction, where the first noun is plural (or inherently plural), it
can always be perceived as "none of".  If the first noun is singular, the
question is probably still up in the air.

Does that sum it all up?

...Paul

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
                     "Isis! Isis! Ra! Ra! Ra!"

Back to archive top level