tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 21 22:03:31 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Correct/canon usage of numbers

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

ja'pu' Daniel:
>According to TKD, an ordinal number is placed after the noun (e.g. meb 
>wa'DIch / first guest). My question is what's the grammatical type of the 
>ordinal number? Does it function as a noun like regular numbers (something 
>like "the first of guests")? Or as a sort of "adjective" (even though it's 
>not a verb)?

I'm not answering this as BG, but just as a free opinion. I would argue that 
a number plus {-DIch} is an adjectival - perhaps even a true adjective, 
since it can't be used as a stative verb AFAIK. Okrand has apparently used 
the phrase {qep'a' wejDIchDaq} which would indicate that such words can 
behave like normal adjectivals in that the type 5 suffixes come after the 
adjectival, not the noun. Nevertheless, your idea about it being a noun 
might also be possible, and this phrase still backs it up: "at the third of 
qep'a's". In short, it's the stock answer: {maSovbe'}. :S

>Another question, regarding the "number forming elements" (maH, vatlh, 
>etc.): are they suffixes or words? TKD shows them attached to the number 
>words, while (I think) the "Bird of Prey" poster which is considered as 
>canon has them separated by a space. So in other words, are both usages 
>correct?

If both usages are found in canon, both usages are probably correct. 
Nevertheless, Okrand's forms tend to be those that use suffixes, and it 
would seem that common usage on the list prefers to use them as suffixes 
(hence {wa'maH}) and not full words (which would be {wa' maH}); in the 
general case, at least. There is some canon that explicitly uses them as 
full words, though, which I'll cite a bit later.

>Is there a distinction between different forming elements?

I don't think we've seen enough of them - particularly {netlh} and {bIp} - 
to make much of a judgment on that.

>Also, is it correct to use a number forming element without a number (e.g. 
><'uy'> instead of <wa''uy'>)?

In HolQeD 8:3 (pp. 2-4), Okrand gave us a series of terms for "century", 
"millennium" and "myriad": {vatlh DIS poH}, {SaD DIS poH} and {netlh DIS 
poH}. These are given exactly like that, with no actual number - although 
they can be used with one: MO gives {cha'vatlh DIS poH} "two centuries; a 
two-hundred-year period of time" in the same article. On Skybox trading card 
S15, the phrase {tera' vatlh DIS poH} "Terran century" is used, which 
clearly indicates that this type of phrase does not need to take numbers. 
(By analogy, one would expect that others like {maH DIS poH} "decade" might 
be possible, too.)

That being said, I can't think of any other situation where a naked 
number-forming element would be used in preference to one accompanied by a 
number.

Savan,

QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings   
http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au

Back to archive top level