tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 01 14:40:25 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: yaywIj yIngaq!

> ja'
> >Meanwhile, please, all you beginners out there, please note that I am joking.
> >I'm making an absurd, but interesting leap into the imaginary realm where you
> >can put noun suffixes on numbers, which are chuvmey, not nouns.

ghunchu'wI' jang:
> I know of two examples which are *very* weakly relevant.
> First is the use of the noun suffix {-Hom} on {Hoch} in Skybox card S13:
> {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom lo'lu'taH.}  {Hoch} arguably acts
> like a number in some cases, though probably not this one, so this actually
> doesn't provide any real support for noun suffixes on numbers.

{Hoch} is a noun in TKD. {HochHom} is a noun in KGT. Neither are numbers.

> The other example is Okrand's mention of the story about a dishonest
> merchant and the use of the word {'ujHom}.  The diminutive suffix
> apparently went on the unit of measure, not the quantity.

Would you mind giving a little context here? Where was this story told? Was 
there any permanent, citable record of this?
> So if I really needed to talk about "a little less than seven minutes", I'd
> feel most comfortable with something like {Soch tupHom}, but I'd probably
> only use it without reservation if I intended to imply a prearranged period
> of time being cut short.  I'd understand if someone said {SochHom}, but I
> would only say it myself for rhetorical effect.

That's an interesting idea, though I doubt I'd be comfortable using either of 
these devices until I got something from Okrand about it. For that matter, if 
you want to talk about almost seven minutes, you'd likely stretch things less 
to say {HochHom Soch tup}. That doesn't give you a device for saying "around 
seven minutes", or "a little more than seven minutes", but then that would 
violate the whole "inaccurate, but not approximate" advice.

Then again, taking your device, that would be {Soch tupHey} and {Soch tup'a'}. 
Of course, you'd have to be careful about that, since you might be tempted to 
use the same device on {'uj}, and apparently an {'uj'a'} is equal to nine 
{'ujmey}. I wish I could cite the original reference to this, but I can't.

Maybe it's the next armpit.

> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh


Back to archive top level