tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 16 08:01:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: big numbers
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: big numbers
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
At 07:32 AM 9/16/97 -0700, ter'eS wrote:
>At 08:48 PM 9/15/97 -0700, SuStel wrote:
>>[email protected] on behalf of Marc Paige wrote:
>>> This leads me to believe that the answer to the original question must
>>> be <wejmaH'uy'> for 30,000,000 and not <wejmaH wa''uy'>.
>>
>>(1) There are other number-forming elements we're not familiar with yet,
(2) >>Klingons have some sort of scientific notation just as we do, and we
don't >>know how to use it.
>>
>>There's a third possibility, of course. (3) Higher Klingon numbers are even
>>stranger than this, and they don't follow any known numeric conventions at
>>all.
>
>The existence of separate "place-marking" elements for ten thousand and one
>hundred thousand lead me to think that the first possibility is most
>likely. On the other hand, the numbering system might easily get weird
>in the higher, less often used, numbers.
I lean towards the idea of scientific notation theory, and lesser known
number-forming elements, probably really only known in the scientific community,
a bit like non-scientists here might not recognize the meanings of SI
prefixes like terra- atto- giga-. The first people to require numbers of
this size in any culture are probably scientists, who are already familiar
with standardizing conventions and notations.
The English language system of numbering is easily extensible by
similarity--a child familiar with the names of polygons can make up
"trillion" "quadrillion" "pentillion." The Klingon one isn't, because you
need agreement on the meanings of number forming elements for mutual
intelligibility. Grin. Sort of like English and North American billions.
Qov ([email protected])
Beginners' Grammarian