tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 26 02:24:58 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KBLC (old): " Qu'Hom " : lutHomwIj wa'DIch.



This is one of those posts I said I needed to finish translating.  Well, I got 
done, and was a bit frustrated to find that part of the translation got cut 
off... well... we make-do...  Also, I will be putting "(old)" in the header 
after KLBC, so that anyone scanning for KLBC posts will realize that this is 
an old correction from me.  *sighs*

Also, some of my comments are less grammar-oriented.  I felt that to commetn 
only on the grammar would have removed some from your efforts, so, where I 
felt might be appropriate, I added a few more stylistic points.  I am sure 
that as more people read this over, you will be *swamped* with stylisitic 
comments, should you care to read them... {{;)


Paul Mackievo':

>lutHomwIj wa'DIch.
>My first short story.
>
>(Comments:
> I'm fairly happy with the more ambitious sentence structures I've attempted,
>  but please point out all problems!
> The story is to be told from a "third person perfective" perspective! Hence 
>  many verbs contain the " pu' " aspect suffix. However, I am concerned that 
>  I may have overused it.

Not too badly.  When people started translating vast amounts of text, 
especially stories, they also ran into this problem.  I believe it was Mark 
Shoulson who first stopped putting on the suffixes, explaining that the tense 
of the story is understood to be in the past tense... so -pu'/-ta' need only 
be used for what is really past tense in the story.

Confuse you?  Yeah, it does me, too.

Basically, go back and look at your story.  If the even it happening in the 
now-time of the story (ie, if this was happening *right now*, and you were 
telling it as it happened... like a radio announcer... would you be using past 
tense for this?), then ditch the suffixes; they really aren't required.


> The story is about 40 lines long, not counting blank lines between 
>paragraphs.
> The intended translation follows about 20 lines below.)


As mentioned, I seem to be missing about a third of it, from the point where 
the commander pulled out a handful of the dead qagh... so my comments after 
that point may be a bit sketchy, as there were a few places I had a hard time 
seeing what you wanted/where you were going.  (I will mark these as I go.)


>Qu'Hom
>======


I thought this was an interesting title.  I am not sure if you meant this 
story to be funny or serious... but after reading it, I thought this gave it a 
comical aspect.


>wa' loDvaD neH torgh Duj mach chenlu'pu'.
>quSDaj qevpu' Qu'Daj tep ngaSwI'mey.
>tuHmey QatlhmoHpu' bIH 'ej cha' jajmey 'e' SIQpu' ghaH.


The first two sentences are fine.  I had to double-check the first one, 
because of all the adjectives/noun-noun contructs in a row... but it's 
'kosher'.  Same with the second sentence.  The third.... well...

Let's look at the third.

First of all, the <ghaH> at the end and the <bIH> are a bit superflous, but 
they did help me to keep straight what you were referring to.  It took me a 
while to see what you were doing with <'e'>.  I *think* what you did was okay, 
so I am going to leave it at that.  I'm not sure you can just throw <cha' 
jajmey> in as a time-stamp.  I think this is one of those debated-things on 
the list.  A good way to get around this is to say <qaStaHvIS cha' jajmey>  
"While two days occured".


>ghopDapmey yotlh 'eltaHvIS lucholtaH jagh Dujmey.
>QeymoHpu' SomrawDu'Daj.
>cha' ghopDapmey joj DIngchu'pu' torgh Duj.
>wa' ghopDap HeHDaq paw'pu' wa' thla'wI'Daj.
>loghDaq 'uy' law' DI tIrmey ghomHa'lu'.
>tlhuHqa'laH torgh, 'ach pay' tlha'wI'Daj cha'DIch Samta' nochmey.

I'm not sure I would use -taH on <lucholtaH>.  I would have used either -qa' 
or even -lI'.  Yes, definitely -lI' (this was one of those stylistic commetns 
I mentioned; grammatically, it was fine)...

the -Daj at the very end of the second line confused me... *whose* muscles?  
Torgh's or his enemy's?  I understood it was Torgh's, after going on, but this 
early in the story, I wasn't sure of you were doing a switch over to the 
enemy's point of view, if you know what I mean?  In the third line, I stumbled 
on -chu'.  I usually trnaslate it as "clearly," as that seems to be the most 
common usage.  for some reason, my 'instincts' tell me that this is an 
incorrect usage of the suffix, but I can find no logic to back it up... it 
certainly looks okay to me... Mark?  Qanqor?

I would have said <tlha'wI'Daj wa'> for "one of his pursuers," although I am 
not certain that is legal.  What you have is fine... just be aware that it 
translates "his one pursuer," which makes the last line a bit confusing--I 
thought there was *only* one pursuer, and now here is a second...

Although your fourth line is grammatically correct, it doesn't really fit in 
with the "style" of the rest of your story... at least, not the way you 
translated (as I saw it).  What you really have is "Someone/thing scattered 
many millions of grains of debris in space." (And all of those noun-noun 
conjunctions and adjectives are VERY confuing... until I saw your translation, 
I had this as "... scattered grains of debris many million <expected unit of 
distance, that wasn't there> in space"!)  Would removing the indefinite 
subject and saying <loghDaq ghomHa' 'uy' law' DI tIrmey> ruin the idea you 
were trying to get across?

In the final line, you didn't have -pu' on <tlhuHqa'laH>, as you did in the 
rest of the story.  Considering you didn't need any/most of the previous, that 
is actually okay.  I just thought I would point out that your 'tense' wasn't 
being 'consistent'... per se.


>luSamqa'law'ta' chaH je.
>jIHDaj poS wovmoHpu' wej pu' qul tIHmey Doq.
>'ach Do' DoSchaj lumuppu' be'


I didn't find anything wrong in the first two lines.  I think you put an 
accidental space in the final line:  <lumuppu' be'> should be <lumuppu'be'>?


>   " qoHmey jay! " 'e' Qubpu' torgh.
>   " DaH 'eb cha'DIch luSuqQo' "


<jay> needs an ' at the end, in the first line: <qoHmey jay'>.  Also, the fact 
that they are fools doesn't change the fact that they are capable of speech 
(as we discover later).  Unless you are using the "scattered all about" 
meaning of -mey, you need to use -pu': <qoHpu' jay'>.

Erg.  I personally don't like this use of -Qo'.  Grammatically, I *believe* it 
is correct.  However, I always felt that -Qo' had a connotation of refusal to 
it.  If this is so, then you are saying that they are *refusing* to get a 
second chance.  This line may also be English-idomatic.  I am *not* the best 
person to judge that, however. {{:/


>QumwI'Daq pawpu' ghogh mughpu' 
>   " DaH yImev pagh pIQaw'! "


No problems here.


>Haghpu' torgh.
>   " Su' jang,"  'e' De'wI' ra'pu' ghaH.
>   " taQbangwIj Sop! "


The first line is fine.  The second line has a very common mistake in it.  
<Su'>, the exclaimation, is a sentence on it's own right.  If you want to say 
"ready to reply," use the Type 2 verb suffixes for that: -rup and -beH.  I 
would have said <jIjangrup!>  "I am ready to answer!" or even Clip it, if you 
want:  <jangrup!>.

I am not sure if you were using Clipped Klingon in the last line or not.  If 
you were no, you need a pI- at the beginning of <Sop>.  Otherwise, it is 
fine... other than it may be another idiomatic expression.


>ghopDapmey yotlh veH leghlaHDI' pIvghor qIppu'.
>SIbI' ra'wI'Daj toQDuj chuqDaq ghaHta'.
>narghHa'pu' lutlha'pu'bogh novpu'.
>nom verghpu' 'ej tep ngaSwI'mey woHpu'.
>ra'wI'Daj pa'Daq nIteb bIH qengpu'.


Okay... I KNOW that "hitting" a device to activate it is idiomatic.  What you 
have here, I translated as "As soon as he could see the boundary of the 
asteroid field, he struck the warp drive (with something)."  Now why would he 
strike his warp drive?  Was it malfunctioning?  You have to be careful when 
you translate expressions like this.  Try looking at the verb <chu'> "to 
engage/activate (a device)."  I think it would be a bit more appropriate than 
<qIp>.

I am not certain <chuq> is properly used in the second line.  It looks funny 
to me.  But that doesn't necessarily mean it was improperly used.  pabpo'pu'?

The rest of these lines were okay.


>torgh bejbe'pu' loD pI' 'ej SoptaH.
>   " yIja'! "
>   " pItlh, joHwI' "


These were okay, except for my initial confusion over who "he" was in the 
second sentence.  Why not make the second sentence a -taHvIS construction?  Or 
even a -mo':  <SoptaHmo' loD pI', torgh bejbe'> "Because the fat man was 
continously eating, he didn't watch Torgh"?


>loD pI'Daq ngaSwI' nobpu' 'ej torpu' torgh.
>ngaSwI'Daq ghopDaj lan ra'wI' 'ej qagh puS yInbe' lelpu'.


I would have used -vaD, not -Daq on <loD pI'> (first line).  -Daq implies 
motion.  Although here there is the "motion" of handing the things over, I 
think the "intended for" meaning of -vaD is sightly better.  Just my thoughts, 
though.

The other line is fine.


>loQ moghlaw' loD pI'. 
>   " noghHa'. wej rIntaH Qu'HomlIj. " Sopqa'.

<noghHa'>?  That means "unwrithing" or "writhing improperly".  Again, this may 
be grammatically incorrect, but I would have just used -be'.



>ngaSwI'Daq nuDpu' torgh.
>lugh ra'wI'lIj 'e' leghpu'mo' torgh 'ItmoH.


Some problems with suffixes.  I think you mis-used -Daq in that first line 
again.  I know what you are trying to say, but I am not sure you can do this.  
What you seem to need is a word for "inside" (the opposite of <Hur>, 
"outside") to put after <ngaSwI'>.  I was supprised I couldn't find this one 
in the KD.  Lacking "inside", I would just leave off the -Daq entirely.  After 
all, the container is already open; we have been discussing its contents--why 
would he be examining the *outside* at this point?

In the second line, you pulled a real, honest-to-goodness grammatical boo-boo.  
first of all, it isn't *your* commander it is *Torgh's*, so it should be 
ta'wI'Daj. {{:)  (And if it *had* been "your", you would have wanted -lI'.  
Remember, first-person possessive suffixes change their form for speech-
capable beings!).  Otherwise, it's okay.


>   " yImej! " 'e' pay' jachpu' loD pI' .
>Suppu' torgh.
>
>lojmIt SIchlaHpa' torgh jachqa'pu' ra'wI'.
>   " mang! "
>
>poH yap neH chalvo' ngaSwI' qagh baHpu' tlhaplaHmeH tlhe'pu' torgh.
>loQ Haghpu' ra'wI' pI',
>   " lenglIjDaq chaq ghungchoH SoH! "


Everything else was okay, until the last line here.  This is nother mis-use of 
-Daq.  Let me explain something about -Daq (which I probably should have done 
earlier in this post...):  -Daq is a locative.  This means there must be a 
sense of physical position to it.  (or so I understand it).  There is nothing 
to be "in" in the journey--not in Hol.  I would recast this to say "while 
torgh was traveling", using -taHvIS, and using the verb "to travel":  <chaq 
bIlengtaHvIS bIghungchoH SoH!>  "Perhaps while you were travelling *you* 
became hungry!"  Remember:  unless you are trying to use Clipped Klingon, you 
must have those verbal prefixes, even if you *are* using just a pronoun in the 
subject spot.  This looks really good, though!  I liked that last line. {{;) 
{{:)


>     ~~~|||~~~
>
>mangHom maQI' : tlhIngan wo' HubwI'.


nuqjatlh?  I couldn't find <maQI'> *anywhere*, nor could I find a verb <QI'>.  
I think there might have been a typo involved here, somewhere...?


Overall, I liked your little plot.  {{:)  When I first started translating 
this, I groaned to see our "hero" was named <torgh> (but that is because the 
majour headach in my VR is named torgh... no, no one anyone here knows... 
well, *some* of you might... but I digress...), but when I saw the outcome, I 
was... delighted.  Heh. {{;)  Most of the corrections I gave you for this are 
of the "It's okay the way you have it, but here is something that might make 
it *better*" variety.  You can take them or leave them as you choose.  There 
were a few "rough spots" in the story-line, but I think I pointed all those 
out, as I saw them.

I hope you revise this and send it in again.  Or even tell us what happens 
next. ;)


--HoD trI'Qal

Back to archive top level