tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 02 19:54:37 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
quantification
- From: Andrew Strader <[email protected]>
- Subject: quantification
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 00:54:35 +0000
- Organization: Decode
ghItlh ghunchu'wI', charghwI' jangtaHvIS:
>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.
I feel partly responsible here. I have in the past said things like
"chorghHey tup" for "about eight minutes". It was purely experimental, of
course, and maybe some people are remembering that as having offended their
linguistic sensibilities. I don't do that anymore, but on the other hand, you
can say "tupHey", because that just means "something which seems like a
minute, tho you can't say for certain". (It may be 55 seconds, or 64 seconds,
or whatever). If you don't have a tlhaq on you and you're trying to gauge the
time going by, you ought to speak in terms of lupHey and tupHey.
chorgh tupHey does mean "eight apparent minutes", or "eight of what seem like
minutes". Is this not an acceptable interpretation of -Hey? Does it take an
Okrandian sanction to render this as "about eight minutes" in a non-literal
English gloss???
On the other hand, it's not at all clear what -'a' and -Hom might mean on
units of measure. The only Terran analog I can think of is Dutch
momentje, the diminutive of moment, "a very brief period of time", "an
instant", but moment is a generic term. What is lupHom? Could it be the next
standard unit of time smaller than a second -- maybe milliseconds. Or is it a
full second that just doesn't count. There are no conventions there, so usage
is entirely experimental. It would be foolhardy to expect such a thing to be
understood, unless you buffer it up with major context.
Having said that, I still feel justified in experimenting. It teaches me a
lot anyway, especially when I get feedback. Don't worry about the beginners
being corrupted. Only a few people ever read the long pages of tlhIngan
Hol I have posted here anyway. :) qay'be'.
Quj chu', nuH chu', pab chu' ghap ghojlu'taHvIS, qaD'eghbe'lu'chugh vaj
ghojqu'be'lu'. pIj SuDnIS ghojwI' 'ej lujnIS. Qapla'na' ghoSmeH HeDaq law'qu'
lujmeH 'ebmey, 'ach not Qapla' lubot bIH. bIluj not 'e' yIHaj. Dublu'meH
lI'qu'bej ngongmey.
Su', jIbepchoH.
IMESHO (in my ever so humble opinion), derived from recent experience in
writing tlhIngan Hol, if there's anything that the language needs, it's
scoped relative quantification. This is right on target with the
precision/accuracy thread. We need the "more" and "less" equivalents to 'Iq
and tlhoy'. How do you say, "more than two", "at least one", "I study more
than she does", "I could fix it if there were less leakage", "they eat fewer
insects", etc. etc. I know many people here will disagree with me, but I also
know they've never tried to say things like, "10 times as many people of
region X died in that one attack as in all the attacks of the previous years
in region Y." Yes, I can say almost anything I want with the Klingon we
currently have, by being clever and resourceful, and based on the responses
of the few who do correspond with me in tlhIngan Hol, I know I am being
understood, but this "more"/"less" issue is the only hole in the language
that really hinders my fluent production it.
DaH, jIbep rIntaH.
--ghuy'Do