tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 12 15:54:12 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Order of ordinals
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Order of ordinals
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:54:05 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:46:21 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> (I noticed a point about this example when it was cited in connection with a
> different topic, so I changed the subject.)
>
> S15 (Reproduced in HolQeD v4n3p5.)
> {wa'DIch tlhIngan Dujmey luleghlu'pu'bogh rur qItI'nga' Duj tera' vatlh DIS
> poH cha'maH wej HochHom lo'lu'taH.}
> Similar in configuration to the first Klingon vessels encountered, the
> K'Tinga-Class
> remained in use for most of the 23rd century.
This is an example we've argued about a lot. So far as we know,
this is a mistake, unless he is using {wa'DIch} adverbially to
mean "first seen" as opposed to "first Klingon ships". We have
had no other confirmation that this is legitimate, however, so
we tend to just look on it suspiciously. If anyone wants to pick
up the hammer, however...
> TKD p. 54 says:
> Ordinal numbers follow the noun.
> meb cha'DIch second guest
>
> But the Skybox example has {wa'DIch tlhIngan Dujmey luleghlu'pu'bogh} as "the
> first Klingon vessels encountered". The ordinal number precedes the noun.
But it also preceeds the VERB, as an adverbial would. The
translation is a bit ambiguous as to what {wa'DIch} is referring
to, and if it can be used adverbially, this makes sense. If it
is used to describe the ship, it is a mistake.
> (In {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej} "Terran century 23", we have, not an
> ordinal, but what the same TKD page calls "a number ... used for numbering".)
Numbers following nouns act like labels as opposed to something
that counts. {jav qama'} is "six prisoners", but {qama' jav} is
"prisoner #6", which is not exactly the same thing as "the sixth
prisoner", though the meaning is closely related. TKD does
describe this in the number section.
> Apparently this is another lapse by MO. {tlhIngan Dujmey wa'DIch
> luleghlu'pu'bogh} wouldn't have been unclear to me. Others' reactions?
It would have been clearer, though I strongly suspect Okrand was
using {wa'DIch} adverbially, since he often introduces new
grammar like this in the Skybox cards.
> --jey'el
charghwI' 'utlh