tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 08 14:37:16 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: 'orghenya' rojmab (remix)
>Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:46:32 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: [email protected]
With any luck I'll get this out before charghwI' does his, and thus save
the poor BG some work. I've been relying on him too heavily.
>nuqneH
>I've been checking this over (again), and this is the latest version.....
>'orghenya' rojmab
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>'ay' wa'
>-=-=-=-=
>chaH poQ rojmabvam mab lulaj tlhIngan wo''e' yuQjIjDIvI''e' je.
OK, I'm lost and it's only the first sentence. I see two main verbs, "poQ"
and "lulaj", and no conjunction or anything between them. "This peace
treaty treaty (why twice?) requires them the Klingon Empire and the UFP
accept it." Huh? You mean "this peace treaty requires that the empire and
the feds accept it" right? Seems a little redundant, but if that's in the
text... Maybe "poQmo' rojmabvam, 'oH lulajnIS tlhIngan wo' yuQjIjDIvI'
je."
>loghDaq SuSuvchuqchugh mangghommeylIj qummeylIj je, SIbI'
>QotlhchuqmoHlu' mangghommeylIj.
"If you (thy armies and thy governments) fight one another in space,
immediately thy armies/something will cause to disable each other."
Erg. That doesn't work either. Using the second person to refer to the
armies is a little strange (I'd say "If *they* fight, your armies and your
govt's".), but not too bad. But why the switch from singular to plural?
How about "loghDaq SuvchuqtaHchugh mangghommeyraj qummeyraj je" for "if
your armies and your govt's continue to fight one another" (I think the
-taH is nice there. Or maybe "-qa'" for "resume fighting").
The second clause is realy tough. OK, let's try slowly. I can't really
see how -chuq and -lu' could go on the same verb. -chuq means "the
subjects and the objects are members of the same set, and they're doing
stuff to each other". -lu' says "the object is as specified, and the
subject is something indefinite." You can see a problem here: you have two
very different prescriptions for what the subject is. Verbs with -lu' do
not have a subject stated. Also, Qotlh seems to be a transitive verb (you
disable something). Adding -moH to it is not needed here, it means "to
cause something to disable (something else, presumably)". Probably more
simply "SIbI' mangghomraj luQotlhlu'" for "Something will immediately
disable your armies." Then again, in Klingon, why bother pussyfooting
around? We know damn well what will disable the armies: the Organians (who
seem to be the narrators of the document.) "SIbI' mangghomraj DIQotlh."
(we will immediately disable your armies). I dropped the -mey since it's
pretty plain what was meant and the word's plenty long already.
>'ay' cha'
>-=-=-=-=-
>DaH choHqu'bej ghu'. reH tlhIngan wo' yuQjIjDIvI' je joj tu'lu'taH.
>pa' Suvbe'chuq mangghommey.
"Now the situation definitely CHANGES. An area in-between the Klingons and
the Fedheads continues to be there. There, (the) armies don't fight each
other."
This is pretty good. The -qu'bej may be a little overkill. I see that
you're trying to say there'll be a neutral zone between the empires, and
your way of doing it is fairly understandable, but it might be clearer just
to say "neHmaH" and use the *word* for neutral zone. Maybe "reH tlhIngan
wo' yuQjIjDIvI' je jojDaq neHmaH tu'lu'taH."
I suppose it's an interesting question as to what, if anything, is the
difference between "Suvbe'chuq" and "Suvchuqbe'". It seems to me that the
first implies that armies may do other things to each other, but not fight.
The second implies they may fight, but they may not fight each other (maybe
they can only fight fuzzy bunnies). Either way is sufficiently close to
what we want as no matter.
>'ay' wej
>-=-=-=-=
>neHmaHDaq HIvchuqchugh nuvpu' ghommey joq, jochHa'moHlu' nuvvetlh
>ghomvetlh joq nuHmey je.
This pretty much makes sense, though I'm a little lost by the conjunctions
at the end ("(those people or those groups) and weapons"). I'm not sure if
"jochHa'moHlu'" is ideal. I think you need a -choH. Something will cause
the weapons to *become* unharmful. That'd be jochHa'choHmoHlu'.
Your word-order is wrong, though. Remember, after -lu' there's no subject.
The subject is indefinite. To say that these things happen to the weapons,
you say "nuHmey lujochHa'choHmoH" (note that it's lu- at the beginning.
check the dictionary.)
>'ay' loS
>-=-=-=-=
>wej cholbogh poH, jup chaH tlhIngan wo''e' yuQjIjDIvI''e' je, vumchuq
>chaH 'ej tay' chaH. 'ach DaH 'ejyo'waw'meyDaq naw' tembe'chuq qummey
>leSpoHvaD leSghachvaD je.
You're trying to use "time-period which is not-yet approaching" as a
time-stamp, I see. Hrm. It's not really clear what you can use as a bare
timestamp. And isn't the time approaching, no matter how far off it is?
Try "qaSDI' wej Sumbogh poH..." perhaps (slight stretch of Sum for temporal
distance). You have a comma-splice after the "je", but that's not really
important.
"vumchuq chaH"? "They will work each other"? You mean "they will work
together", right? That'd "tay'DI' vum chaH" (cf. "matay'DI' vIHtaHbogh bIQ
rur mu'qaDmey"). Or consider "jIj chaH"/"They will cooperate".
Then I get confused. You have two main verbs, "tem" and "naw'". Oh, I
see, you're using "naw'" as a noun. Is that there? I only find it as a
verb. The -vaD words have to come at the beginning of the sentence,
leSghach is -ghach on a bare verb, which is unusual. Consider using "-meH"
instead, since it makes more sense:
DaH, leSmeH qoj leSpoHmo' ghIQmeH 'ejyo'waw'chaj naw' rewbe'chaj 'e' tuch
qummey.
OK, I had to really recast a lot there.
>'ay' vagh
>-=-=-=-=-
>'orghenya'Daq mIch luvuv qummey. 'oH lunIDbe' qummey 'orghenya'Daq mIch
>loH joq nIS 'e'. qummeyraj DImuv maneHchugh, reja'.
Hrm. I don't know that Okrand had "respect the borders of" in mind for
"vuv", which probably means something more like what people have towards
each other. And should there be -nIS on all these things: they *must*
respect the border, not just they don't? That's arguable.
The next sentence confuses me. A lot. Like totally. "the governments
don't try it... at organia, the sector... administer/stration. ?or?
prevent... that-sentence-is-the-object-of:" Oof. Sorry, I'm lost.
It should be wIneHchugh, since "we want to join your govt's" is the object
of the wanting.
>'ay' jav
>-=-=-=-=
>neHmaHDaq tIghHommey law' tu'lu' 'e' wISov. Domey pIm DuvtaH
I understand the first sentence, I just don't quite follow it. "We know
there are many little customs in the neutral zone." Maybe it'll make sense
as I read on.
>tIghHommey. chaH QaHlaH tlhIngan wo' yuQjIjDIvI' je tIghmey
>'Itlh. Hachghachvam chaw' 'orghenya' 'ej qumvaD naw' nob 'orghenya'.
I see. Civilizations are developing at different speeds? Try using tayqeq
for civilization. Trouble with the sentence, though, is that "Domey pIm"
doesn't seem to function as anything. It's not the object of Duv (they
aren't advancing speeds), it doesn't seem to be anything. I suppose one
could come up with some verb and use a -taHvIS phrase or something, but
it's probably simpler to say "nom DuvtaH tayqeq puS, QIt DuvtaH tayqeq puS"
and leave it at that.
Customs or civilizations aren't people. I suppose you can use chaH to
refer to the people who are members of the civilizations, but if they're to
be considered helping the civilizations, I'd use bIH. I was going to
hassle you for the tIghmey 'Itlh on the end, but now I understand: the
advanced civs of the Klings and Feds can help them.
Hachghach is a bare-verb-with-ghach, which is to be avoided. How about
"HachchoHtaH tayqeqmeyvam 'e' chaw' 'orghenya' qum" (the Organian gov't
permits these civs to develop)... unless you meant something else. You're
using naw' as a noun again. Try "naw' qum 'e' chaw' 'orghenya qum." or
something.
>-- toDbaj
Whew!
~mark