tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 02 12:23:16 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: time
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: time
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:25:35 -0700
jatlh charghwI':
> In other words, these are numbers:
>
> pagh
> wa'
> cha'
> wej
> los
> vagh
> jav
> Soch
> chorgh
> Hut
>
> These are "number forming elements":
>
> -maH
> -vatlh
> -SaD
> etc.
>
> So, eleven is {wa'maH wa'}. One hundred twenty three is
> {wa'vatlh cha'maH wej}. See? Others likely will not like this,
> but it works for me and it fits the descriptions in TKD
> describing numbers, though the definitions in the word list are
> not consistent. He uses the term "number forming element"
> sometimes and not at others, even on the same word from one side
> of the dictionary to the other.
>
jatlh Thornton:
> So, can number forming elements be combined? Can I say either
> {cha'netlh} or {cha'maHvatlh} for "twenty thousand (20,000)"? Would
> I say {meb wej'maHDIch} for "thirtieth (30th) guest"?
For the first question - we don't know. We do know it is absolutely correct
to say <cha'netlh>, but <cha'maHvatlh> is suspect at best. The only real
problem this leaves us is for numbers of ten million and larger, which can't
be expressed with the number words we already have. If we can ever prod
Maltz into writing a basic Klingon math text, I'm sure we'll find out how to
count higher; until then we will all have to wait.
For the second question - yes (without the extra <'>). <wejmaH> is a number,
and <-DIch> is a suffix which goes on numbers and makes them ordinal. You
can say <vaghvatlh HutmaH SochDIch> with just as much confidence as
<wejDIch>.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian