joining numbers used for numbering by {je} and conjunctions
In a previous thread we wrote: (http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-March/019526.html) ****** Previous thread starts ****** jIH:
I want to say: We fought the romulans during the second and third century So I write: qaStaHvIS vatlh DIS poH cha'DIch wejDIch je, romuluSngan DISuv Would joining ordinals by {je} or any other conjunction be considered to be correct? SuStel: Dunno if we have evidence, but numbers of all sorts are noun-like enough that I have no trouble treating them like nouns, even if they're not being used in the > way that TKD describes using numbers as nouns. If you want to be certain of correctness, you could of course say qaStaHvIS vatlh DIS poH cha'DIch, vatlh DIS poH wejDIch je.But I wouldn't bother.
****** Previous thread ends ****** I was going to ask whether we can join numbers used for numbering such as: flood torpedo tubes one and two DuS wa' cha' je tIbuy'choHmoH However, I think this must be pretty straightforward, since it's just {wa'} and {cha'} being placed after the noun instead of being placed before it. So I'm just writing this as a separate thread for the purpose of archiving this matter, thus avoiding to be asking about it again in the future. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
Not that it matters, but I would be inclined to say {cha’e’ wa’ cha’ je tIbuy’choHmoH}. Then the numbers are obviously being used as nouns and the conjunction clearly makes sense. I’m not suggesting that you are wrong. I’m just sharing how I’d do it. On the topic of torpedoes, flood one and two. It could be misinterpreted, of course, just as your suggestion could be misinterpreted as”Flood the torpedo and one and two.” You’d flood four items. charghwI’
On Mar 22, 2022, at 8:25 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
In a previous thread we wrote:
(http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-March/019526.html)
****** Previous thread starts ******
jIH:
I want to say: We fought the romulans during the second and third century So I write: qaStaHvIS vatlh DIS poH cha'DIch wejDIch je, romuluSngan DISuv Would joining ordinals by {je} or any other conjunction be considered to be correct? SuStel: Dunno if we have evidence, but numbers of all sorts are noun-like enough that I have no trouble treating them like nouns, even if they're not being used in the > way that TKD describes using numbers as nouns. If you want to be certain of correctness, you could of course say qaStaHvIS vatlh DIS poH cha'DIch, vatlh DIS poH wejDIch je.But I wouldn't bother.
****** Previous thread ends ******
I was going to ask whether we can join numbers used for numbering such as:
flood torpedo tubes one and two DuS wa' cha' je tIbuy'choHmoH
However, I think this must be pretty straightforward, since it's just {wa'} and {cha'} being placed after the noun instead of being placed before it.
So I'm just writing this as a separate thread for the purpose of archiving this matter, thus avoiding to be asking about it again in the future.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:24 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
flood torpedo tubes one and two DuS wa' cha' je tIbuy'choHmoH
I would interpret *tIbuy'choHmoH **fill them* as meaning to *load torpedoes into* the tubes. If the intent is to flood them with water, why not use the word *SoD **flood *instead? As for the actual question, I think you could conjoin the labeling numbers that way, but 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!* If you really want to phrase it the way you put it, I suggest making the plural torpedo tubes explicit: DuSmey wa' cha*' je...* -- ghunchu'wI'
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"? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
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"?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 8:57 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
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"?
It could only be understood that way if there were indeed separate groups of torpedo tubes. If that's the case, then it's ambiguous however you say it -- at least if both the groups and the individual tubes are called *DuS* and numbered. I wouldn't expect that sort of system to survive as a viable usage, and I would expect the tube groups to be called *ghommey* or *DaHmey* and the individual tubes to be called *DuSmey*. -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
Will Martin