tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 24 13:49:42 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: lengwI' vIyaj vIneH



On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:10:00 -0800 Qov <[email protected]> 
wrote:
> > wot chenmoHmeH tu'lu' wa'netlh'uy' vaghSaD'uy' vaghvatlh'uy'
> > SochmaH'uy' wej'uy' wa'bIp Sochnetlh wejSaD javvatlh wa'maH jav patmey pIm
> > 'e' vInoH!
> 
> Have another look at the word order there.  Think OVS.
> 
> > 15,573,173,616.  
> 
> Daj.  I'd never seen anyone write a number that large in Klingon, 

You obviously forget pagh's expression of pi out to more 
than 50 digits. From memory.

> and at
> first I thought there was something wrong.  Now I really like it.  Easier
> to parse than English numbers.  (cha'ben, DIvI' Hol mI'mey mu'mey pojmeH
> De'wI' vIghun 'ej ghommey polmeH loSnIS De'wI'.  tlhIngan Hol mI'mey
> yajmeH, SIbI' yajlu'.  Daj).

I suspect this person is European, since that's the way 
Europeans express orders of magnetude higher than a hundred 
million. What Americans call a billion, they call a 
thousand million. It is a very efficient form of expressing 
numbers, since their billion is our trillion and their 
thousand billion is our quadrillion, and their million 
billion is that order of magnitude that I don't know the 
word for in American English. But in European terminology, 
I know a million billion, a trillion, a thousand trillion, 
a million trillion, a billion trillion, a quadrillion, a 
thousand quadrillion, a million quadrillion, a billion 
quadrillion and a trillion quadrillion all before I run out 
of numbers that I know words for.

Meanwhile, in Klingon, is wa'netlh'uy' a valid number term? 
I actually hope so, but we don't have any real evidence for 
it. Unless we get some word from Okrand, we need to realize 
that on those rare events when we have to express a number 
bigger than nine million nine hundred ninety nine thousand 
nine hundred and ninety nine, we are no longer speaking 
Klingon as we know it is spoken, unless we merely list off 
the digits without indicating order of magnetude.

I'll also add that the calculated number above probably 
ignores meaningless combinations of suffixes, which do 
exist.

charghwI'



Back to archive top level