tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 14 06:32:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: big numbers
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: big numbers
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:32:30 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from Qov on Tue,9 Sep 1997 22:17:00 -0700 (PDT))
>Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Qov <[email protected]>
>
>At 12:17 PM 9/9/97 -0700, muHwI' wrote:
>>Is it possible to say in klingon phrases like
>>"...millions of (whatever)"
>>"thousands of..."
>>"hundreds..."
>>Can we make plurals with numbers ?
>>like *vatlhmey* or *'uy'mey*
>>"I have traveled millions of kellicams to get here"
>>{naDev vIghoSmeH 'uy' law' qelI'qam vIlengta'} (?)
>
>The problem is that plural suffixes are for nouns, and Klingon numbers are
>chuvmey, not nouns. While I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these Carl
>Saganesque constructions are legal, we can't use them until Marc Okrand
>reports that Klingons do.
Also note that number-forming elements are not generally found alone.
"*maH" cannot mean "ten"; that's "wa'maH". "*'uy'" is not "million";
that's "wa''uy'". These elements are more suffixes than words, so far as
we know. (the exception that comes to mind for me is "vatlhvI'". Not a
true exception, but evidence of one).
~mark