tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 23 12:37:05 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

Steven Boozer ([email protected])



Daniel:
> >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?

QeS lagh:
>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.

If Okrand has been inconsistent in this, so have other languages.  E.g. 
English "twenty one" vs. "twenty-one" vs. (rarely) "twentyone" or Spanish 
"veinte y uno" vs. "veintiuno".

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

A very frequently asked question.  Many people have wanted to use 
*{'uy'mey} "millions", *{SaDmey} "thousands, *{vatlhmey} "hundreds" and 
*{maHmey} "tens", etc. - but Okrand has never done so, and so neither 
should we.

>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.

Hmm... my notes have all the words separately written:

   With longer time periods, such as a century ({vatlh DIS poH}), or
   a period of 10,000 years ("myriad", perhaps) ({netlh DIS poH}), the
   words {ret} or {pIq} may be used in place of {poH}, e.g., {cha' vatlh
   DIS poH} "two centuries", but {cha' vatlh DIS ret} "two centuries ago."
   The phrase {cha' vatlh ben} would mean "200 years ago". The choice of
   construction depends on what is being emphasized: in this case, the
   total number of centuries (two) or the total number of years (200).

At least in the paragraph, Okrand is consistent: {cha' vatlh DIS poH}, 
{cha' vatlh DIS ret}, {cha' vatlh ben}.  Does someone have this issue of 
HolQeD easily at hand and can check?

>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.)

Many of us have also suggested *{SaD DIS poH} "millennium".

>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.

To add to the confusion, the "naked number-forming element" can occur as a 
morpheme in nouns:  {vatlhvI'} "percent" leading some to speculate on 
possible forms like *{maHvI'} "a tenth" or even *{loSvI'} "a fourth, a 
quarter".  Okrand, though, specifically rejected this when translating a 
line from ST5, opting for the more precise percentage instead:

   cha'maHvagh vatlhvI' Hong, QIt yIghoS.
   Slow to one quarter impulse power.

"A Klingon may be inaccurate, but he is never approximate." (CK)



--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level