tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 21 16:27:17 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: paghHu'/paghleS
On Fri, 21 May 2004 [email protected] wrote:
> > In fact, I would argue that there is just as much to defeat the proposal
> > -- namely, that we do know the Klingon number system originally did not
> > have a concept of 'zero', so it's quite likely that /paghHu'/ is
> > nonsensical in that respect (kinda like saying "the zeroth day of the
> > month").
>
> Where do you get that they didn't have the concept of 'zero'?
> The early count system didn't use 0 as a place holder in numbers with more than
> one digit. But nothing says they didn't have pagh - zero, nothing, absence of
> anything.
Maybe I just inferred bit, but in CK, there's a bit where they talk about
numbers, and he mentions that the original number set only had 1, 2, and
3. It is known that early human civilizations did not even have a
'concept' of zero, and maybe I just drew a parallel.
> Nonsensical, yes, but we DO have canon of zeroth.
An explicitly *slang* canon of "zeroth", yes.
> > I also think it's interesting to note that in the TKD, section 5.2, zero
> > is NOT listed in the list of "Klingon Numbers".
>
> I noticed the number 21 isn't listed there either. It must be a special
> number. And you can't say that list is of the number forming digits, because
> 10 (wa'maH) isn't a digit.
Your point about /wa'maH/ is certainly valid.
> > It appears later, in the simple statement, "Zero is /pagh/."
>
> But it is in there, and it is no more "simple" than "4 loS". Actually
> the list of numbers is more simple than the complete sentence for pagh.
But it is defined in a separate and distinct way. I'm not saying that
this is "proof" that /pagh/ is "special" or "not really a number", I'm
saying that it could be seen as indicating it.
> > This could reinforce the idea that
> > /pagh/ is 'special' and not necessarily considered the same kind of
> > 'number' that would be used to craft things.
>
> "Zero" is just as 'special' with humans. When I'm teaching my two year
> old to count I go from 1 to 10.
>
> And of course in the computer world "zero" does have a 'value'. "diskdrive
> number 0".
Yes, in our modern human world, "zero" is a meaningful number, and part of
our mathematical language. This does not mean that /pagh/ is necessarily
the same.
One reason I would point this out is that, among all the numbers, /pagh/
is the only one with given *noun* status, "no one, nothing". That, plus
the fact that it's NOT listed in the list of "Klingon Numbers", would lead
me to believe that /pagh/ is not "really" a number, in the same sense that
it does not subscribe to many of the same rules that "real numbers" like
/wa'/, /cha'/, /wej/, etc. do.
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"Ninja monkeys are meeting as we speak, plotting my demise."
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}