tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 12:23:04 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: RE: HoghwIj nI'



On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:40:22 -0500  [email protected] wrote:

> jatlh ghunchu'wI':
> 
> 
> > > nI' jajvetlh Qu' - jav vatlh rep tagh 'ej wa'maH Soch vatlh rep rIn.
> > 
> jang Holtej 'utlh:
> 
> 
> > I've been wondering about the telling of time like this.  In Okrand's post
> > to the startrek.klingon newsgroup on time-telling, he talks about two
> > systems, the military system and the non-military {'arlogh Qoy'lu'pu'}
> > system. 

This is not quite accurately reported. You make it sound like 
there are two different systems of reporting time. One is 
military and the other isn't. Meanwhile, Okrand's message began 
with:

**************************************************************
Actually, there are several ways to ask "What time is it?" in 
Klingon.  Here are a couple.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
**************************************************************

Note that he implies that there are more ways to talk about time 
than the ways presented here.

Given all the sources, including CK which has been augmented, 
but not superceded, we have three ways to say 1:00PM:

wa'maH wejvatlh rep
rep wa'maH wej
wa'maH wejlogh Qoylu'

Indeed, there may be others, but these are the ways he has shown 
us so far. Note that the hours preceed {rep} only when you use 
the military "hundred" added to the hour. After all, these 
systems have been influenced by contact with other 
civilizations, and in military time, we say "thirteen hundred 
hours" even though there are less than a hundred hours in a day.

> > For the former, he writes:
> > 
> > "When giving the time using this system, hours are numbered, not counted.
> > That is, one says <rep cha'> 'hour two, hour number two, two o'clock,' not
> > <cha' rep> or <cha' repmey> 'two hours'". [1]

Note that he did not say this is the only military system of 
time. CK gave another system and that is still valid. There are 
TWO differences in these systems. One uses {vatlh} while the 
other doesn't. The one that doesn't use {vatlh} labels the hour 
by following {rep} with the number. The one that does use 
{vatlh} counts the hours by preceeding the word {rep} with the 
number. Note that the CK system is the ONLY system of time we 
have been given that allows you to indicate a portion of an 
hour. We know that 2:30 pm is {wa'maH loSvatlh wejmaH rep}. We 
don't know how to say this by label. Maybe {rep loSvatlh tup 
wejmaH}. That makes sense, but it is not part of what Okrand 
tells us. Meanwhile the {Qoy'lu'} means of describing time 
leaves us no way to indicate a portion of an hour.

Also, for amusement, note that another American military way of 
indicating time is to speak of "Six bells" being 6:00am.
 
> > But on this list, I've only ever seen time with the hours counted, as
> > above.

It was the first method of time he gave us and the only one that 
explicitly explains how to express portions of an hour. I think 
he gave us the two new time systems primarily to expand the 
meaning of the verb {per} and to introduce the word {'arlogh}.

> > Is this just a traditional error, or is there some other reason for this
> > difference?  I'll quote Okrand's entire message below.

This is not an error at all.
 
> I'd suspect that the use of counted hours such as {wa'maH Hut vatlh rep}
> comes from the explanation of time on the Conversational Klingon audio tape.
> Presumably, since the newsgroup posting is more recent, it supercedes the CK
> explanation for telling time.

Don't bet money on it.

> However, to me at least, because I've listened
> to CK far more than I've read the newsgroup message, the (incorrect)
> counting method unfortunately sticks in my head more.

It is not incorrect. I WILL put money on THAT. I guarantee you 
that if you ask Okrand if the method of telling time expressed 
on CK is valid, he will DEFINITELY tell you that it is valid. He 
will explain that there are different methods. We've been given 
three. There may be more.
 
> I've found that the audio tapes have been very helpful for me, especially in
> remembering vocabulary. When the language is used aloud, and I can listen to
> it over and over, I remember it well. I'd prefer that I remember it this
> way, so that I can recall the sounds rather than having to visualize text
> from an email/newsgroup posting before I say words.  I wouldn't mind if a
> new tape/cd was produced, if only to hear and practice newer grammar &
> vocabulary that is more recent than the CK & PK tapes.

I'm for that.
 
> -taD

charghwI'



Back to archive top level