[tlhIngan Hol] vatlh DIS poH question

Lieven levinius at gmx.de
Thu Jun 9 06:27:09 PDT 2016

Am 09.06.2016 um 14:06 schrieb De'vID:
> I don't see this as a problem at all.
> The reason {maH}, {vatlh}, {netlh}, {bIp}, and {'uy'} are described in
> and you can't write just {vath} by itself with that meaning.

This is where I see the problem, or why it's confusing for beginners 
like mayqel. If somebody had asked me to translate "100-year-period" i'd 
immediately have said {wa'vatlh DIS poH}, following TKD.

> That doesn't exclude {vatlh} from appearing as an element in
> non-number terms like {vatlh DIS poH}, or, say, *{vatlh QaS}

Yes, I understand and can accept that.

>> {cha' vatlh DIS poH} "two centuries" makes me think about the question
>> whether this should be translated per definition as cha' [vatlh DIS poH] or
>> more literally {cha'-vatlh [DIS poH]} "200 years period."
> chay' pIm cha' ghu'meyvam?

1. One may see [vatlh DIS poH] as the idea of "century". Then, ten 
centuries are {wa'maH [vatlh-DIS-poH]mey}

2. Or you may see it as a number forming suffix described in TKD and 
translate literally as "200-years-period", or even "750-years-period", 
that is omitting the idea of talking about "centuries", simply years. 
{cha'vatlh DIS poH}...
majatlhtaHvIS pImchu'be' 'e vIHar, rurmo' cha' qechmeyvetlh. jISaHqu'be'.

chay' mu'tlheghmeyvetlh Dayaj?

{qaStaHvIS vatlh DIS poH SochDIch...}
"during the seventh century..."

{qaStaHvIS wa'maHwejvatlh DIS poH...}
"during a period of 1300 years..."

Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list