tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 10 14:14:18 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: number suffixes
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: number suffixes
- Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 17:14:16 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> (message from Marc Ruehlaender on Wed, 10 May 1995 08:23:20 -0400)
>Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 08:23:20 -0400
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
>In TKD there is no example of -DIch or -logh
>following one of the "multipliers" -maH, -vatlh, etc.
>So can I say wa'maHDIch for tenth, or do I have to
>use wa'maH paghDIch?
Eeg. I'd definitely say "wa'maHDIch". After all, -DIch is added to a
number, right? And wa'maH is a number, right? You don't have to say
"?wa'maH pagh paq" for "ten books," the wa'maH is a number. A compound
one, perhaps, but a number. Similarly wa'maH wa'DIch for "eleventh."
>And am I right to interpret what MO says about Klingon
>numbers in a way that counting proceeded as:
>{1} = 1 {2} = 2 {3} = 3
>{11} = 1x3 + 1 {12} = 1x3 + 2 {13} = 1x3 + 3
>{21} = 2x3 + 1 {22} = 2x3 + 2 {23} = 2x3 + 3
>{31} = 3x3 + 1 {32} = 3x3 + 2 {33} = 3x3 + 3
>and that 13 was not {111} because that would be
>the simple continuation?
Couldn't say for sure; I think he was being deliberately vague. You also
shouldn't be too sure thant any ancient numbering system was perfectly
consistent or logical. Look at ones still in use, like one of the two or
three used in Welsh: 17 (in a particular numbering system) is "two on
fifteen" (dau ar bymtheg) but 18 can be "three on fifteen" (tri ar bymtheg)
or "two nines" (deunaw)!
>Did MO ever give more clues about the ancient
>number system?
Not that I know of.
~mark