I'm wondering, wouldn't <pagh’a’> convey "absolutely nothing / absolute nothingness"?

From what I understand while checking the TKD,it looks like the -'a' suffix intensifies the meaning of the noun it is attached to, and "-Hom" reduces the intensity of the meaning.

Thus, to express "a little nothing / almost nothing / very little", perhaps <paghHom> is the way to go ?



2017-08-15 9:55 GMT+02:00 Anthony Appleyard <a.appleyard@btinternet.com>:
The word HochHom is well known'

HochHom may mean:-
- N:[most|greater_part]=
- N:all NS1:diminutive

i.e. "small all".

Is there any chance for what seems to me to be a logical opposite to it?:-

pagh'a'

pagh'a' may mean:-
- N:nothing NS1:augmentative
- N:no_one= NS1:augmentative
- I:0 VS9:interrogative
- I:0 NS1:augmentative

I was tempted to suggest it to ask Marc Okrand about using pagh'a' as "big nothing", i.e. "next to nothing", "very little", "not enough to be of use".


_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org