[Tlhingan-hol] maH?

[Steven Boozer]

Josh Badgley:
> There's a few typos I noticed, mainly with the pIqaD, also Ferenginar
> is now apparently <<verenganar>>.  

Thanks for telling us, but this correction was discovered and discussed last week.

> nav Huch vInuD 'ej ngoD Daj vItu'.  wa'maH QaS nav <<maH>> ghItlhlu'.
> 
> I thought maH was the number forming element and wa'maH meant ten.  So
> maH can be used alone?

That's probably a typo.  I imagine someone at the press just looked up "ten" in TKD.

By coincidence, something similar is in the {paq'batlh} where the phrase {SaD law'} "thousands" occurs (p. 170-71) but without any plural suffix.  We now may have a way to say "tens", "hundreds", "millions", etc.  Has anyone seen other examples in the {paq'batlh}?

>                         So is this maH thing a typo or has
> this always been acceptable and I just never noticed it?

AFAIK this is the first time Okrand has used it with {-mey}, though I think it's been used on the list and in fandom.  

He has used these "number forming elements" separately before:

HQ 8.3 (p.3):  With longer time periods, such as a century ({vatlh DIS poH}), millennium ({SaD 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).

Okrand has written larger numbers sometimes as one word {cha'vatlh} and sometimes as two {cha' vatlh} over the years.


--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons