tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 07 06:08:06 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: HoghwIj nI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: HoghwIj nI'
- Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 09:08:06 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:12:59 -0500 David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> jatlh charghwI':
> > 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}.
>
>
> Explicit? I don't believe Okrand has EVER told how to express portions of
> an hour. Adding half-hours and such to the Conversational Klingon method of
> describing time is merely a logical extension of the rule; Okrand never
> addresses it. (If he does somewhere, I've forgotten. Please enlighten me
> as to the source.)
bIqar, jupwI'. HIvqa' veqlargh! I thought I remembered him
doing at least one partial hour, but I just went back and
checked my transcription and it apparently never happened.
I think that with the time given as "military time" others
on the list in the military suggested the "twelve hundred
thirty hours" as the way to say "12:30". It made sense and
we accepted it.
So, it would make exactly as much sense to expand the label
version of time for the same moment as {rep wa'maH cha' tup
wejmaH}. In other words, it is exactly as legitimate or
illegitimate because it makes sense, but we have no canon
examples to back it. Meanwhile the {Qoylu'} version of time
expression has no way I can imagine that can express time
in other than rounded hours.
I have been getting rather sloppy and presumptive lately.
tlhIghvaD jItlhIj. I'm beginning to feel rather humble on
many fronts these days.
> SuStel
> Stardate 99848.6
----------------------
charghwI'
De'wI'vaD Hovjaj nab vIHutlh