[tlhIngan Hol] joining numbers used for numbering by {je} and conjunctions

[Steven Boozer]

I don’t know of any examples with {SoD} but if you’re unwilling to make it transitive we do have {lIch} "pour (into/onto anything)" – also no examples but the definition implies an object.  We also have {qang} "pour from one container into another" which take an object but may not be the appropriate verb since flooding tubes “may be done manually or automatically, from sea or from tanks, depending on the class of submarine” according to Wikipedia. (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_tube )

Voragh
___________________________________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of mayqel qunen'oS
ghunchu'wI':
> If the intent is to flood them with water, why not use the word SoD flood instead?

{SoD} is obviously a better choice, which was actually the first choice that came to my mind, but I didn't use it since I didn't know whether {SoD} could take an object.

ghunchu'wI':
> I would probably be more clear with DuS wa' DuS cha' je.
> Or, if the situation called for clipped speech, I might just say wa' cha' je SoD!

These are very nice suggestions. For some reason I can't understand I always forget the option of clipped klingon..

ghunchu'wI':
> If you really want to phrase it the way you put it,
> I suggest making the plural torpedo tubes explicit: DuSmey wa' cha' je

This is an interesting option, although I wonder.. Couldn't the {DuSmey wa' cha' je} be understood as if we have two separate groups of torpedo tubes, which we go on by labeling each group as "flood the group of torpedo tubes one", and "flood the group of torpedo tubes two"?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220323/86d0487b/attachment-0003.htm>