[Tlhingan-hol] Tlhingan Hol ghogh wab

[De'vID]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Isawo Tsukada <qapla at orange.zero.jp> wrote:
>  toH, wa'logh QInvetlh vIleghpu' 'ach 'ay'vetlh vIlIj.
>  jIyaj. qaQochbe', qechlIj vIpabbej.
>
>  huh? yIloS!
>  tera' poH 'oHmo' "2014"'e', lugh {cha' pagh wa' loS} vIjatlhpu'bogh,
>  qar'a'?
>
>  tlhIngan poH vIjatlhDI' jISaH.

'ach chaq poH lughItlhDI' tlhIngan ngIq mI'Hom lughItlh 'ach poH
lujatlhDI' mI' naQ lutogh. chaq potlh 'oHbe' Daq'e'.

The examples we have are:
- with a written Terran date, the year is written 1-9-9-4 in Klingon
(and not written one-thousand-nine-hundred-and-ninety-four);
- with a spoken Klingon date, the year is spoken
eight-hundred-and-forty-six (and not spoken as eight-four-six).

This could mean that:
- Klingons write and speak Terran dates as strings of digits, but
write and speak Klingon dates as numbers (i.e., compound cardinal
numbers)
- Klingons write all dates as strings of digits, but speak them all as numbers

That is, we don't know if the difference is due to Terran vs. Klingon
or written vs. spoken. Or maybe it depends on the formality of the
context (like, in English we write 1994 and would normally say
"nineteen ninety four", never say "one nine nine four", but in a very
formal context might say "in the year one thousand nine hundred and
ninety four"). And it's likely that Marc Okrand didn't think that hard
about consistency and the relationship between written and spoken
dates.

jISovchu'be'. 'ach poH jatlhlu' 'e' 'aghbogh wa' chovnatlh wIghaj neH
'ej DISvaD mI' naQ toghlu' 'e' 'agh chovnatlhvam.

-- 
De'vID