tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 15 12:49:42 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Remixed tribbles.....
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Remixed tribbles.....
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 13:28:34 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "toDbaj, AberdeenDaq tlhIngan" at Feb 14, 95 12:10 am
According to toDbaj, AberdeenDaq tlhIngan:
>
> nuqneH
>
> I'm trying a different approach....saying by each bit what I intended to say!
> I hope it makes your lives slightly easier.....
qatlho'qu'! Dutlho' SoSwI'! nItlho' jupwI' Hoch!
> The Klingon view of....
> yIHmey!
> -=-=-=-
>
> Paragraph 1:
> HIvIt, qatlh chuSbogh Ha'DIbaHmey mach parHa' tera'nganpu'?
> Tell me the truth. Why to Terrans like small noisy animals?
YES! BY JOVE, I THINK HE'S GOT IT!
> 'IH yIHmey 'e' Har tera'nganpu.
> Terrans believe that tribbles are beautiful.
HIja'!
> qatlh 'IH?
> Why are they beautiful?
maj.
> 'IH jIlwI' targh 'e' vIHar, 'ach 'oH luQoch.
> I believe my neighbour's targ is beautiful, but they don't.
I think this would be better without {'oH}. We don't really
have any reason to think that {Qoch} is transitive, and using
{'oH} to represent the previous sentence is not really
something we have a precedent for, either. Additionally, the
sentence makes perfect sense without {'oH}. "...but they
disagree."
> Paragraph 2:
> "Tribbles" Dochmey machqu' pong tera'nganpu'.....
> Terrans call these very small things "tribbles".....
I can't really comment on this because I think that Okrand
needs to speak to the proper use of the verb {pong} and so far
he has not. The English verb "call" has two different kinds of
objects and you have treated {pong} the same way, with two
objects, one simply following the other. This may very well be
correct, but nothing in TKD justifies this grammatical
construction. By current grammar, this means, "Terrans call the
very small things of the Tribbles," or "Terrans call the
tribbles' very small things."
> 'IH Ha'DIbaH nuq, nachHey ghajbe'bogh 'ej vay'Hey ghajbe'bogh?
> What creature is beautiful which has no apparent head and no apparent
> anything [else]?
Again, we've hit on an area we need Okrand to clarify. He
speaks only of {nuq} behaving grammatically like a noun, like
{nuq DaneH}. In this example, {nuq} is the object of {DaneH}.
You are using {nuq} as "which", which behaves grammatically
like an adjective. We don't really have a question word for
"which" yet. There is the sense that you might use {nuq}, but
there is no description as to good word order in this instance
because {nuq} is then not being used as a noun. See?
Both of these issues ({pong} and "which") are tops on my list
of things to get Okrand to speak to. I have hopes these issues
will be addressed in the next few months.
As for the rest of the sentence, the word order does not cut
it. Verbs with {-bogh} form relative clauses by being right
next to their head nouns. The head noun must be in the subject
or object position for the verb with {-bogh} in order to form a
relative clause, and that clause is then placed where the head
noun would be placed in the larger sentence, again as subject
or object of another verb. Your verbs with {-bogh} are out
there on their own, mysteriously linking themselves to
{Ha'DIbaH} as head noun without the prerequisite proximity or
word order.
I'd dodge the "which" issue and the double relative clause
issue by recasting with something like:
nach ghajbe'chugh Ha'DIbaH vaj 'IHlaHbe' 'oH 'e' vIHar. pob moQ
QIp 'oH yIH'e'.
> SoHDaq vay' chagh Dop nuq 'e' DaSovbe' - chaq yIH.
> You won't know what side will drop something on you - probably another
> tribble.
Again, we deal with "which". The whole core of this sentence
depends upon "which". Hmmm. Qatlhqu'. In case you had not
guessed, my approach to the language is that if I see that a
tool is not working well, I look for some other tool.
nuqDaq yIH nuj 'oHtaH? nuqDaq poSlaHbogh yIH Daq 'oHtaH?
SovlaHbe'lu'! reH yIH puq chaghtaHmo' yIH not DunDaq yIH neHlu'.
>
> Paragraph 3:
> 'IH Ha'DIbaH nuq, yIHmey law'qu' boghmoHbogh Ha'DIbaH, nom jonta'pa'
> luteb, 'ej neH Sop 'ej chuS?
> What creature is beatiful, that gives birth to so many tribbles that they fill
> up an
> engine-room, and only eat and be noisy?
Again, you are depending on "which". You call it "what", but it
really is "which", since it is acting as an adjective instead
of as a noun. Actually, you could drop {Ha'DIbaH}... {'IH nuq?}
Looks like I fell for {jonta'pa'}, which also means "before he
accomplished capturing it", and as such, makes no sense
whatsoever in this sentence. Again, you are building a very
complex sentence here with lots of relative clauses all trying
to attach to the same head noun. You just can't do that in
Klingon.
> Paragraph 4:
> 'ach yIHmey vutlaH vay'.
> However it it possible to cook tribbles.
pov qech 'e' vIHartaH. Actually, I read this more as, "Anybody
can cook tribbles," which is perhaps a better statement than
your English translation.
> pIj yIH nay'mey DaSamlaHbe' Qe'meyDaq Suchbogh tera'nganpu'.
> Often you cannot find courses of tribble at restaurants which Terrans visit.
As per my other post, I don't think you can build a relative
clause with a locative acting as head noun. If you really want
to convey that part of your thought, I'd recommend:
pIj Qe' Suchchugh tera'nganpu' vaj pa' motlh yIHmey nay'
tu'be'lu'.
Note that I'm using {motlh} adverbially to mean "usually" as
Okrand did on one of the Skybox cards. I'm not wild about this
sentence just because there are so many ambiguous words in it.
{pa'} can mean "room" or "thereabouts", while I want the
latter. {motlh} can mean "usually" or "be usual". This could be
misread to say, "If Terrans often visit a restaurant then one
does not find the usual room's tribbles' dish." Ugly. Instead,
I of course meant, "If Terrans often visit a restaurant, then
usually one does not find a dish of tribbles there." I would
tend to go for the simpler:
motlh yIHmey nay' ghajbe' tera'ngan Qe'.
> yIHmey Surghbe' machqu'mo' 'ej taj DaruQ nuqDaq 'e' DaSovbe'.
> You cannot skin them because they are very small, and you don't know where to
> put the knife.
Your word order is very bad here.
machqu'mo' yIHmey 'ej nuqDaq taj ruQlu' net Sovbe'mo' bIH Surghbe'lu'.
While I think the complexity of my attempt here is somewhat
intense -- a wee bit dicey, perhaps, I think it still pans out.
In particular, placing {-mo'} on the second verb in a sentence
as object construction is not something I tend to do every day.
Still, the {'ej} connects a neatly parallel structure of two
{-mo'} suffixed verbs well enough to make this parseable by
most Klingon speakers. Please let me know if anyone disagrees.
> yIH DaSamchugh yInbogh, chuSqu'.
> If you can find a tribble that is alive, it is very noisy.
Again, your word order is very bad because you fail to put a
verb with {-bogh} next to its head noun:
yInbogh yIH DaSamchugh vaj chuSqu'.
> 'ach roqegh 'IwchabvaD nay' 'oH yIH'e'.
> However, tribble makes a good [side-]dish for rokeg blood pie.
I don't think you handled this sense of "with" very well. The
blood pie is not the beneficiary of the action of the verb "be"
here. {-vaD} generally implies that the noun is the beneficiary
of the action of the verb. Consider:
'ach roqegh 'Iwchab tlhejDI' yIHmey vaj pov nay'.
> Paragraph 5:
> nuHmey QaQ bIH yIHmey'e'.
> Tribbles are good weapons.
I agree with the grammar, but not the content. While fun to
throw, the only effective martial use of tribbles is for
jamming mechanical devices or to distract the enemy. Neither of
these really counts as a WEAPON. I mean, it takes an incredible
number of these things to block a betleH, and they won't stand
still...
> chegh gholpu' puSqu' chaHvaD yIHmey law' luvo'DI'......
> Very few adversaries return when many tribbles are thrown at them.....
Not altogether bad. {lu-} is the wrong prefix here, since
{yIHmey} is plural. You want the null prefix instead. Also,
what your core thought really means is "Very few adversaries
return AFTER many tribbles are thrown at them." I'd change
{luvo'DI'} to {vo'lu'ta'DI'}. The literal here is "as soon as
one has accomplished propelling", which more fluidly would be
translated as, "after many tribbles have been thrown". I'd also
consider replacing {-vaD} with {-Daq}, though this is certainly
debatable.
> Paragraph 6:
> 'ach DaH HoHnIS yIHmey.
> However, [as vermin] they must die immediately.
teH.
> cha' DIS yIH HoHwI' lu'ogh tejma'.
> It took our scientists two years to invent the tribble predator.
Your time reference doesn't really work here.
yIH HoHwI' lu'oghmeH tejma' cha' DIS poQ mIw.
> 'ej qaS nuq?
> And what happens?
>
> 'oH nIH tera'ngan. wejpuH.
> A Terran steals it. Charming.
>
> vaj maHvaD 'uy' yIHmey nob Kirk (taHqeq!).
> Then that taHqeq Kirk jives us a[nother] million tribbles.
Fine.
> 'e'vaD chaH muStaH HoD qolotlh.
> Captain Koloth still hates him for that.
{'e'} is a pronoun. You can't put noun suffixes on a pronoun.
Try {wanI'mo'}. And "him" is {ghaH}, not {chaH}.
> Paragraph 7:
> chaq SaD yIHmey DIboS 'ej USS Enterprise-vaD DInob??
> Perhaps we could round up a thousand tribbles and give them to the USS
> Enterprise??
>
>
> I hope this lot decodes into something vaguely comprehensible ;)
>
> Qapla'
>
> -- toDbaj
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> | $$$$$ ,$$$$$ ,$$$$$ $ |
> | $$$$ ,$$ $ ,$$$$$ ,$$ $ |
> | $$$$ $$ $$$$$ $$$ $$ $$ $$ |
> | $$$$ ,$$ $ $$ ,$$ ,$$ $ |
> | $$$$ $$$$$ $$ $$$ $$$$$ $ |
> | $$$ ,$$$ $$ ,$$ ,$$$ |
> | $$$ $$$$$$$$$ $$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$ |
> | $$$ $$$ $$ $$ $$$ |
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~u06rmm/
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |