tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 03 06:45:35 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon sentences
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Klingon sentences
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 94 18:42:47 EDT
ghItlh RobBaruch:
>| From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> (...)
>| rut tlhIngan Hol lulo'bogh mu'tlheghmey'e' vImugh 'e' vInIDDI' jIQap.
>|
>| "Sometimes, I succeed when I try to translate sentences which
>| use a Klingon's language." Better? Sometimes this is like a
>| jigsaw puzzle. When the pieces fit badly, sometimes it is
>| better to take it apart and start all over again.
>Why is the 'e' topicalizer/emphasizer on { mu'tlheghmey }?
Because it is the head noun of the relative clause. It means the difference
between "I translate sentences which use Klingon" and "I translate Klingon
which sentences use", the latter being appropriately translated as {tlhIngan
Hol'e' lulo'bogh mu'tlheghmey vImugh}. See Krankor's "Grammarian" article in
HolQeD 1:3.
>I like to stay away from relative clauses if I can help it. It is
>awkward to say "ball which is red and big" instead of "big red ball".
>Of course, Klingon has "be big" and "be red".
Yes, but often {-bogh} is the best and only way to express certain things. It
is quite useful when understood. Maybe this is your problem. Don't fret it;
you'll catch on; everyone starts out knowing nothing.
>But Klingon doesn't appear to have "be Klingon". So how would you say
>"Klingon sentence"? We say { tlhIngan Hol } for Klingon language and
>{ tlhIngan wo' } for Klingon Empire. We say { DenIbya' Qatlh } for
>Denebian slime devil, { 'orghenya' rojmab } for Organian Peace Treaty,
>and { telun Hovtay' } for Tellun Star System.
>Literally translated, { DenIbya' Qatlh } is not "a Denebian's slime devil"
>but "Denibia's slime devil" or "the slime devil of Denibia"; otherwise
>it would be { DenIbya'ngan Qatlh }. Same thing with the others -- Peace
>Treaty of Organia, Empire of Klingon, Language of Klingon. Presumably
>also Star System of Tellun.
The noun-noun construction is not solely for expressing ownership or
possession. It also indicates nouns that are simply associated with each
other. E.g., {Duj bIng}, "below the ship" does not indicate a plot of land or
section of space below the ship which it owns, but simply means "lower area
associated with the ship". Similarly, {jolpa'} is not "room belonging to the
transporter", but merely "room having to do with the transporter and
transporting purposes". "Klingon sentence" is best rendered {tlhIngan Hol
mu'tlhegh}, and {tlhIngan mu'tlhegh} is an acceptable abbreviated
alternative.
Even so, it's interesting to note that "of" in English also has uses beyond
possession. "Coat of many colors" does not indicate any sort of possession.
"Of" is often a way to show attributes or qualities in English.
>So I guess all this is to say, I like the compactness of "sentences of the
>Language of Klingon" rather than "sentences which use the Language of
Klingon".
'e' luQochHa'qang nuv law'
>I have a question about my second sentence above. I'll make the sentence
>structure much simpler. I want to translate "I write to you". But there is
>only "write", not "write to" in TKD. Meaning that I can easily translate
>"I write words" as { mu'mey vIghItlh }.
>Having gone through David Barron's Lesson 8, I've learned about indirect
>objects. It seems that in "I write to you", what is actually being said
here
>is "I write (something) to you", with "you" as an indirect object. Similar
>to "I send data to the captain" -- "the captain" is the indirect object.
>If that is the case, then should the translation of "I write to you" be
>{ SoHvaD vIghItlh } and not { qaghItlh }? [ I vaguely recall a letter to
>this effect in HolQeD; I don't have it conveniently with me. Any ideas on
>making an online version of back issues? ]
The general consensus nowadays is that when the object is not mentioned, but
only the indirect object is present, and as long as no real ambiguity
results, {-vaD} can be omitted. Thus, in {SoHvaD jIghItlh}, where the thing
being written is not mentioned, {-vaD} is superfluous, and the indirect
object becomes grammatically, tho not semantically, the object. So, it's fine
as {SoH qaghItlh} or just {qaghItlh}.
In a similar situation, {HInob} means "give (something) to me" rather than
"present me as a gift (to someone)".
>So should my sentence, rather than { tlhIngan lujatlhchu'meH ... }, read
>{ tlhInganvaD lujatlhchu'meH ... }?
Not necessarily, for the reason I mentioned above.
>--------------------
>OK, here's another sticky (for me) translation. "teaching materials".
>First, since I can't find "material" in TKD, I'd like to choose "device"
>instead. I believe that is the spirit of the phrase.
Try {paQDI'norgh jan} or perhaps {paQDI'norgh paq}.
>Now, I see two choices. One, use a relative clause (which I don't like):
>"devices which teach you" { nIghojmoHbogh janmey }. Interesting side-point:
>my English dictionary claims that "teach" as a transitive verb means "to
>impart knowledge to", implying that in "teach you", the indirect-objectness
>of "you" is absorbed already in the verb. But is the Klingon "teach"
>identical to the English "teach", down to the 'implementation' of the
>transitive form? I.e. is "I teach you" to be translated { qaghojmoH }
>or { SoHvaD vIghojmoH } ?
Now be careful. Look more closely at {ghojmoH}. It is "cause [someone] to
learn". Thus the object of {ghojmoH} is the person who's learning. But if you
want to name a specific discipline being taught, you might try the infamous
double-object causative thingamajig (don't let the highly technical
linguistic terminology throw you). For "I teach their children biology", it
could be {yInQeD lughojtaH puqchaj 'e' vIqaSmoH}. See my letter on pg.11 of
HolQeD 2:3 for more details on the {...'e' qaSmoH} construction.
>Or, I can step right onto the pavement slick with the blood of the -ghach
>war, and use "teaching devices" { ghojmoHghach janmey }; although I think
>that here -ghach is fully justified by TKD.
>Any opinions?
vuD lu'Ijlu' 'ej luja'lu' not net tuch
>--Rob
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos