[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: van bom

Thu Mar 24 08:50:15 PDT 2016

Okrand could have made this restriction (if he wants it restricted) much clearer if he’d called it a “number-forming element” instead of a “noun”, but then he’s not even consistent with numbers. {maH} is a “number-forming element, but {vatlh} is a “number”, as are all the other numbers for powers of ten.

It’s yet another lost opportunity for precision and clarity, but he’s never claimed to have that as a focus in the creation of the language, and it’s not something that he goes back and fixes later.

If someone who talks to him could remember to ask him about this, it would be helpful. Otherwise, as a new speaker, it’s probably not a good idea to habitually use {ben} without a number until we hear something explicit from Okrand saying it’s okay. There might be nothing wrong with it, but then if there is, that’s one more habit you’ll have to change later once the finer details of proper Klingon speech are known.

Technically, since he has indicated that {maH} is a number-forming element, and none of the other numbers are, you could argue that it’s not okay to say *{maH nuv vISuvta’}*. You’d have to say {wa’maH nuv vISuvta’}. But you could say {vatlh nuv vISuvta’} without it being an obvious problem. Meanwhile, I personally would feel a little weird saying that, and am compelled to make it {wa’vatlh nuv vISuvta’} as if {vatlh} were a number-forming element.

But is that accurate? In English “ten” stands alone, while “hundred” doesn’t. I have to say “one hundred” to mean “100”. Is {maH} a number-forming element because in Klingon, it needs to be preceded by the number of tens indicated, while in Klingon, {vatlh} can stand alone without a number, meaning “one hundred” the same way that “ten” means “one ten”?

Given that contrast, maybe saying {wa’vatlh} is just plain wrong. We wouldn’t say “one ten”. Why would a Klingon say “one hundred”?

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv

> On Mar 24, 2016, at 7:20 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> I’m not sure this is an absolute restriction. We haven’t SEEN {ben} used on its own, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be. 
>  
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>
>  
> From: mayql qunenoS <mailto:mihkoun at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:31 AM
> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: van bom
>  
> voragh :
> > {ben} "years ago" isn't used without a number or quantity noun preceding it
>  
> thank you Ca'non master for telling me this ! So far I believed, that
> one can use {ben} on its own. Luckily, now I learned the correct way
> of using it. thanks !
>  
> mayqel mIv Hurgh qunnoq
> attack now, or be slaves in their world
>  
>  
>  
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > mayql qunenoS wrote:
> >> ben, Sepmaj van bom wIqonmeH nuQaH muchwI' 'e' wItlhob.
> >> years ago, we requested that a musician helps us in order
> >>  to compose our national anthem.
> > 
> > AFAIK {ben} "years ago" isn't used without a number or quantity noun preceding it:
> > 
> >   cha'vatlh ben HIq vItlhutlh
> >   I will drink Two Century Old Ale. PK
> > 
> >   vagh SanID ben buDbe' wamwI'pu'.
> >   5,000 years ago, hunters were not lazy. (st.k 11/99)
> > 
> >   nen rav: chorgh ben
> >   AGES 8 to Adult  (Monopoly)
> >   ["maturation minimum (lit. "floor"): eight years old"]
> > 
> >   'op ben pa' Dab ngan 'ej chep
> >   [translation not available] (PB)
> > 
> > Okrand has discussed {ben}:
> > 
> > (st.k 12/12/96):  The word {ben} can be used to mean "years old", but in Klingon, one doesn't say "I am X years old". The phrase {loSmaH ben jIH}, if anything, would mean "40-year-old me" or the like. It would parallel {cha'vatlh ben HIq} "Two Century Old Wine". "I am 40 years old" would be expressed as: {loSmaH ben jIboghpu'}. This is "I was born 40 years ago". As is normal in Klingon sentences, the time element (in this case, {loSmaH ben} "40 years ago") comes first.
> > 
> > (HQ 8.3:3):  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} ["period of time ago"] or {pIq} ["period of time from now"] 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).
> > 
> > A better option is to follow the PB example:  {'op ben} "some years ago" using the noun {'op} "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity".  Okrand has also used {'opleS} "one day [in the future]" (written as one word) in the paq'batlh:
> > 
> >   qeylIS loDnI' 'opleS chovan
> >   One day, brother Kahless, you will bow before me (PB 58f.)
> > 
> >   qeylIS loDnI' | 'opleS bIHaghbe' | 'opleS 'opleS 'opleS
> >   [translation not available] PB
> > 
> > *{leS} "days from now" seems to be a bound morpheme in compound nouns - e.g. {wa'leS} tomorrow, {cha'leS} day after tomorrow - and not a separate word.
> > 
> > All that being said, I have seen *{ben law'} "many years ago, long ago" and *{ben law'qu'} "long, long ago, once upon a time" used on this List when talking about legends and myths - but never by Okrand.  Even here the feeling was that {ben} still needed to be modified somehow.
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Voragh
> > tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a'
> > Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> > Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> > http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160324/e55cd191/attachment-0001.html>