tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 13 00:16:40 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: KLBC: Higher numbers

• From: GusDog <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: KLBC: Higher numbers
• Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:39:05 -0500
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
• User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1

> hmm, yes, you are correct... but maybe they're as relaxed with number forming 
> words as we are.  In (American) English, eleven hundred is the same as one 
> thousand one hundred.  



teH. wa' DoS wIqIp.


>>Another question: do we really have no number-forming elements higher 
>>than 'million'-- {'uy'} ?
>>
> 
> I'm very certain that klingon has such words... we just don't know them yet.



maj! qatlho'!

-ghuStargh

• References:
  • KLBC: Higher numbers
    • From: GusDog <[email protected]>
  • Re: KLBC: Higher numbers
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the
• Next by Date: Re: KLBC: Higher numbers
• Prev by thread: Re: KLBC: Higher numbers
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC: Higher numbers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level