tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 05 09:56:53 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: rep
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: rep
- Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 11:45:38 -0400
From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
>---David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't understand those guesses. Are you losing
>> the {vatlh} somewhere?
>
>Well, yeah. Why would you say {vatlh} when there is no "00"?
Why would you say "thousand" if there is no "000"?
1345 "One thousand, three hundred, forty-five."
Not "One three four five."
>> This is one of the very, very rare cases when you should first think
>of how
>> it's said in English, and then translate it word-for-word into
>Klingon.
>
>That's what I did.
>
>You actually say "fifteen hundred thirty hours"?
No, I say "three thirty," but if I were using 24-hour format, yes, I would.
>What does the hundred mean?
Same thing it always means.
>To me it means "plus two zeroes." There aren't any
>actual hundreds involved, eh?
As demonstrated, it does not mean "add zeros." It's the placeholder. All
English number-naming works like that.
>So yeah, I dropped the {vatlh}. I was copying my English usage, which
>is slightly different from SuStel's and the common usage on the web.
Then perhaps Klingons have also copied this format. However . . .
>We'll get Okrand to ask Maltz, and be done with it. :)
Forget Maltz: we have Chang.
". . . having been lulled into a false sense of security by an invitation to
a state dinner aboard Captain Kirk's vessel, at precisely nineteen-hundred
thirty hours that same evening." (the beginning of the trial in Star Trek
VI)
Plus, it's always the way I've heard it, not that I hear it spoken much.
SuStel
Stardate 98509.7