tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 08 04:31:16 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: HIqIH



<<qIH>> vIlo'laHbe'chugh vaj <<vIDel'egh>> vItam.

Hmm.  Is {vI***'egh} or {jI***'egh} correct?  I really /do/ have an object,
but does {-'egh} remove the need for {vI-}?

> law' jIlaD.

"I read a lot."  I guess I got lazy and used a /very/ naive translation.
"I read many things" would be better.  I say "things" because I want to
include books, magazines, billboards, and cereal boxes.
{Dochmey law' vIlaD.}

> law' laD.
> law' Sov.

Similarly, "He reads a lot" and "He knows a lot."
{paqmey law' laD 'ej Dochmey law' Sov.}

Now I reveal the mystery phrase:
> wIqIp 'e' wIbuQDI' <<qIpbogh chaHbe' puqpu'>> 'e' jatlh *Corey*.

"When we threaten to spank him, Corey says 'Children are not for hitting.'"

I did /not/ want to recast the quoted phrase, I wanted to /translate/ it.
It is a direct quote, and I wanted to preserve it as closely as possible.
Maybe "Children are not that one hits them."  {ghaH qIplu' 'e' chaHbe' puqpu'.}
Or maybe not.  It's much easier to reword to an active form: {puqpu' tIqIpQo'.}

The distinction between "spank" and "hit" is lost in my translation.  I could be
more specific (or more graphic) and refer to {'o'Daj}...  :-)
"While a Klingon may be inaccurate, he is /never/ imprecise!"

{'o'Daj wIqIp 'e' wIbuQDI' puqpu' tIqIpQo' 'e' ja' *Corey*.}
It's still a monster, but I think it's grammatically correct.
The {wIpuQDI'} connection is ambiguous -- does it more naturally attach
to the closer {tIqIpQo'} or to the ultimate {ja'}?  I'll try to fix it:
{puqpu' tIqIpQo' 'e' ja' *Corey*.  'o'Daj wIqIp 'e' wIbuQDI' 'oH ja'.}

-- ghunchu'wI'



Back to archive top level