tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 23 12:48:01 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Correct/canon usage of numbers

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Correct/canon usage of numbers
• Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:47:47 EDT

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 6/23/2005 3:38:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:


> 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.
> 

Are you sure he was "specifically rejecting" the use of *{loSvI'}, or just 
opting for the more precise percentage?  Maybe {loSvI'} is also correct, but not 
as likely in this context.  If he had used {loSvI'}, would that mean he was 
specifically rejecting {cha'maHvagh vatlhvI'}?  

When there is a choice, factors other than grammaticality may come into play.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Correct/canon usage of numbers
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Correct/canon usage of numbers
• Next by Date: Qe'Daq maghoS/Qe' wIghoS (HQ3.3) final conclusion?
• Previous by thread: Re: Correct/canon usage of numbers
• Next by thread: Re: Correct/canon usage of numbers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level