tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 02 22:18:35 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: time
"William H. Martin" schrieb:
> In Danish, 1:30pm is written "13:30" is vocalized as I'd
> translate, "Half of two" and 1:35 is called "Five after half of
> two." Go figure.
I know what you mean (from french and german). I kept thinking that
the way of telling time described on CK is the standard way. But now I
recognize that THAT way of telling time is the militaray way, and the
other is the more usual, commun, daily-use way of telling time. Right?
> I'd say {wa'maH Hutvatlh wa'maH vagh rep}. Some put in even more
> spaces than I do, but in general, it seems like the number
> elements indicating powers of ten get merged with the digit
> number, and these "paired" number words are then separated from
> one another by spaces. It definitely makes them easier to read.
Yes, actually, I had several tries on this! wouldn't this be clearer:
{wa'SaD Hutvatlh wa'maH vagh} This fits your word-per-digit theory
better. I first misunderstood {wa'maH Hutvatlh wa'maH vagh} as "ten
ninehundred fifteen".
"Rose, Thornton" wrote:
> So, can number forming elements be combined? Can I say either
>{cha'netlh} or {cha'maHvatlh} for "twenty thousand (20,000)"?
I don't know *if* you can, but if yes, it should be {cha'maHSaD}
I had a similar question: Do we defenitely have to use the largest
possible number-forming-element, or can we combine number words?
is it {wa'vatlh SaD...} (this actually doesn't make sense to me, but
I'll carry on)
{wa'netlh}
(I think I've just answered my question to me myself, but I'll leave it
there for you interested in my thoughts. The question I wanted to state
just dissapeared, everything became clear.... :-)
Er... I'll turn it around: Is the following correct?
Any number is of the form
{mI''uy' mI'bIp mI'netlh mI'Sa(nI)D mI'vatlh mI'maH mI'} where mI'
stands for any digit from pagh to Hut.
(That reminds me of the way the numeric system is build
a*10^4+b*10^3+c*10^2+d*10^1 is that right?)
> One word per digit, basically.
That's a good one! I'll try to remember.
> I would understand any of this, though context better tell me
> this is PM and not AM.
It's AM, but that doesn't matter here.
Quvar muHwI'
(gee..)