quantification

[Andrew Strader <strader@decode.is>]

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