tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 01 15:29:33 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yaywIj yIngaq!
From: <[email protected]>
> I don't think we've ever had {bID}'s use clarified. Likely you are right,
but
> when I actually try to use {bID}, especially in combination with other
number
> words, I find myself quickly humbled.
I don't have the relevant text in front of me, but I'm pretty sure we've
seen it on the Bird of Prey poster.
I don't find much difficulty understanding /bID/ the same way as numbers and
pseudo-numbers. I don't know if it works more like numbers or more like the
one-side-or-the-other /Hoch/ business: /bID chab/ might mean "half a pie,"
or it might mean "half of the pies." I don't know. Until we do, I'd tend
to treat it a little more numberish than /Hoch/.
In the case of /chab bID/, this can even be analyzed as any old noun-noun
phrase: "pie half."
I'm not making a case for saying things like "three AND A HALF pies," as
that requires grammar we haven't been exposed to at all, and doesn't follow
in some way from what we have. For now, if I were to translate "three and a
half pies," I'd say /wej chab bID chab je/.
> This is, in part, why I'm so unsure about {bID}. It's not that we didn't
have
> any rules for the use of {Hoch}. We had some apparent rules, and they were
> wrong when we actually got to see the use of these words. Different rules
> applied. So, if different rules apply for {Hoch, HochHom, 'op} then how
can we
> be sure that {bID} fits that rule instead of the genetive rule for nouns?
Or acts like a pure number, or acts purely like a straightforward noun and
nothing else. I don't think we really know everything yet, and I wasn't
really focusing on /bID/.
> While I'm certainly willing to accept that {bID} is like {Hoch}, I'm a
little
> less certain in that assumption than you are.
I wasn't singling /bID/ out, and I wasn't stating that each and every noun
listed together necessarily had the same certainty in my mind.
> Interesting. If I stumbled across this, it would cause me pause, but I'd
> understand it all. I think all this should be high on the list of things
for
> someone to talk to Okrand about next time we get that opportunity. Perhaps
he
> would enjoy a general discussion of numbers, accuracy, number related
nouns
> (like {Hoch, 'op, bID} and their possibilities with {-Hom} and {-'a'},
leading
> or trailing nouns.
ghu'vam qel Okrand 'e' vItul.
> > I find these uses of /-Hom/ to be very hindsightish, though not
impossible.
> > How about /Soch tup, lup puS je/?
>
> It still bothers me some. I really think Okrand tossed off the
"inaccurate, but
> never approximate" joke just so he'd never have to deal with this.
I agree with your assessment of Okrand's motivation, but I feel he did it to
ignore the question, not to state that it's not dealt with in the language.
Sooner or later Klingons will need to speak approximately, and there have to
be tools to accommodate that. Okrand is saying, "You're just a visitor to
the Klingon Empire, so I'm not going to bother working out the grammar or
vocabulary for approximately; you'll get by."
SuStel
Stardate 2165.2