tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 10 21:03:25 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: number suffixes
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
> 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
We don't really know how it worked. We don't really need to. And we
probably never will. But the way I read Okrand's comments it really goes:
{1} = 1, {2} = 2, {3} = 3, {3+1} = 4, {3+2} = 5, {3+3} = 6, {2x3+1} = 7,
{2x3+2} = 8, {2x3+3} = 9, {3x3+1} = 10, {3x3+2} = 11, {3x3+3} = 12,
(Ok, so you've seen that much before. As Okrand says, "then it got
complicated.")
{2x3x3+1} = 13, {2x3x3+2} = 14, {2x3x3+3} = 15, {2x3x3+3+1} = 16,
{2x3x3+3+2} = 17, {2x3x3+3+3} = 18, {2x3x3+2x3+1} = 19
Well, I think you may get the idea there. As more of a mathematician
than a linguist, I can tell you that this is a very sloppy way of
counting (and even sloppier when done your way). But it was certainly fun
taking this opportunity to study it in depth. (BTW if you want to see
more of my theory, let me know privately. I don't want to spam the list.)
janSIy
"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads."
-They Might Be Giants