tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 13 18:50:56 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: billion
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: billion
- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 21:53:11 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 13:56:43 -0700 [email protected] wrote:
> > Your {-maHSanID} has
> >a simple equivalent: {netlh}.
> >
> >>*If* this sort of thing is permitted, I suggest {wa'netlh'uy'}.
> >
> >Thanks <<wa'netlh'uy'>> would be less cumbersome.
> >
>
> ten-thousand million? Isn't that the same as ten billion?
>
> I think it should be <wa'SaD'uy'> for one billion (if this sort of stacking
> is permitted).
I'm sure that our Brittish Brethren are amused at this. The American and
English (and probably the rest of the world) numbering systems stop
cooperating once they pass the hundred million mark. An American billion
is an English thousand million. I believe that an English billion is the
same as an American trillion; a million millions. I belive that the
English thousand billion is an American quatrillion, but I'm not sure.
Meanwhile, the English have a million billion, then a trillion, a
thousand trillion, a million trillion, and a billion trillion which are
really big numbers I don't even know how to say in American number
terminology.
Meanwhile, Klingon numbers get big enough for most things we are likely
to measure in common conversation, so we don't have all THAT much to
complain about. Anything beyond {'uy'} is {law'qu'}.
> DloraH
charghwI'