tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 16 19:02:08 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dr Okrand Speaks -- ben
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Dr Okrand Speaks -- ben
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:03:04 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:53:41 -0800 "Donald E. Vick"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ngeH charghwI':
> > Klingons are not approximate, right? So if today is my
> > 42nd birthday, I would say, {loSmaH cha' ben jIbogh.} Tomorrow,
> > and 363 days after that, I'll say {loSmaH cha' ben jIboghpu'.}
> > Get it?
> qechlIj vIyajchu', 'ach jIQoch.
qatlh jImerbe'?
> If this is what is happening,
> it would be just as correct to say {wa' ben jIbogh} since as of one
> year ago, I had been born.
The issue here returns to one of context. The truth is that
when, in English, I say, "I am forty years old," in fact except
for one day out of the year, I am more than forty years old. By
convention in the context of giving one's age, we give the
integer of the number of years you have been alive. We don't
round up at six months, which would be statistically closer to
an accurate age. It's just the way we give age.
Klingons similarly, by Okrand's description, give a date stamp
and say, "I had been born" after it. That's just how it is done.
It is now our task to "get used to it."
Meanwhile, I'm guessing that they might not say it that way on
their actual birthdate, since at that point it would be
inaccurate to use the perfective, and everyone knows [the room
chants synchronously] "a Klingon may be inaccurate, but he is
NEVER approximate!"
DaH, bIqaytaH'a'?
> taDI'oS vIq, law'wI'pu'vaD Holtej jIH
charghwI'