tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 12 10:26:19 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "HolQeD" 3:4
Great! You beat me to it. majQa!
According to [email protected]:
>
> No longer able to supress the overwhelming urge to post about the stuff in
> "HolQeD,"...
Don't worry. You have not shattered your reputation for
restraint. You didn't have one. {{:)>
> Page 5. I just don't understand what Qanqor was so upset about.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
> "Buy me a drink."
> {jItlhutlhmeH vay' yIje'}
or
jItlhutlh 'e' yIDIl.
> "Your question has two answers."
> {yu'bogh mu'tlheghlIj lujanglaH cha' mu'tlheghmey}
The original sentence is so vague that translation into more
idiomatically precise Klingon is somewhat arbitrary. In the
first place, most Klingons would skip this useless introductory
remark and just say {[answer #1] pagh [answer #2]} if the
choice is exclusive, or {[answer #1] qoj [answer #2]} if it
isn't. Then again, we're not sure the answers wouldn't be
nouns, in which case we'd use {ghap} or {joq}.
If the remark is deemed necessary, I'd go for:
Dajanglu'meH cha' wIvmeyvo' bIwIvnIS. [exclusive]
Dajanglu'meH cha' wIvmey DawIvlaH. [inclusive]
> "The problem lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."
> {qay'be' 'u', 'a qay'wI' wIvu' maH'e'}
> I don't really count this as the best way to translate this English sentence.
> The idea of looking at stars as controllers of fate or events of the universe
> is not necessarily also part of Klingon ideology...
Agreed.
qay'be' Sanmaj. maqay'lI' maH.
> "Did you receive his payment."
> {DuDIlpu''a'}, {HuchDaj DaHevpu''a'}
> See how simple that is?
Perfect.
> "I speak Klingon better than you."
> {tlhIngan Hol jatlhmeH, jIH po' law', SoH po' puS}
> We do have canon for unprefixed {-meH} clause verbs, tho I wouldn't trust
> them in all cases.
I still prefer something like:
tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhchu' 'ach Dajatlhlaw' neH.
The comparison here is not adjectival. It is adverbial, so it
belongs in the contrasting useage of adverbials or verb
suffixes that function adverbially instead of cranking it
around so we can use the adjectival law'/puS construction.
> "I translate better when I am tired than when I am awake."
> {jImughmeH, Doy'bogh poHwIj qaq law', Doy'Ha'bogh poHwIj qaq puS}
Similarly:
jIDoy'DI' jImughchu' 'ach jIDoy'Ha'DI' jIQagh.
> "If executing an evasive maneuver is efficient, then taking evasive action is
> foolish."
> {yapchugh junmeH wa' tuH, vaj Dogh juntaHmeH mIw'a'}
> Again, those unprefixed {-meH} clauses are canon. We cope. (Check TKD bottom
> of page 171.)
Basically, I don't understand the English. Ahhh. Misquote. "If
executing an evasive maneuver is SUFFICIENT..." Okay. I still
don't understand the English. What is the difference between
executing an evasive maneuver and taking evasive action?
Without clarifying this, I'll make a wild stab at it:
bIjunta'chugh 'ej bIjuntaHchugh vaj bIDogh.
> "Winning makes the battle worthwhile."
> {Qaplu'chugh, vaj lI'bejpu' may'}
or
may' lI'bejmoH Qapla'.
> It appears to me, however, that the {-ghach} problem is not so profound as
> Qanqor makes it out to be.
Agreed. This is not to say that my faith in Krankor's insight
is diminished. He's been busy, and clarification on {-ghach}
did invalidate his assumptions in his earlier article on
{law'/puS}, so he needed to respond in some way. The result
strikes me as "much ado about nothing".
> Page 7-9. "Ugh" is the best word to describe the overall effect this had on
> me.
I'm witholding opinions until I read the article a few more
times. I know that past writings of Proechel have predisposed
my responses to future articles by him in a negative way, so I
want to repeatedly try to avoid the inclination to discount his
every word. Clearly there are things here that I would disagree
with no matter who said them. Meanwhile, I want to leave open
the opportunity that I might recognize something here that I
now disagree with because Proechel said it, but on further
reflection, I would have no OTHER reason for disagreeing with
it, and so I should START agreeing with it.
> First off, {HeghwI'} does mean "dying person" (or animal) no matter what.
> Think of the verb {Hegh} first. Klingon has no real way to say "dead," except
> with {Heghpu'}. And really, I don't know where Glen gets off saying that
> "perfective forms are not required in Klingon." My reading of TKD 4.2.7
> doesn't leave me with impression. Perfectives are not things that you can
> imply very easily. Either a verb is perfective or it just isn't. Without
> {-pu'} or {-ta'}, a verb just won't come across as perfective. Tense is
> implied by a time adverbial, plurality is implied by verbal prefixes, but
> perfective suffixes aren't just things that you can omit whenever the hell
> you feel like it and expect to get the same result.
Hmmm. You seem to be completely right.
> I admire Glen's detective work in discovering how the forms {De'wI'},
> {chamwI'}, {HerghwI'}, etc., arose from ellipsis, but saying now that
> {QoQwI'}, {chutwI'}, etc., are legitimate word formations is clearly stepping
> over the line, as far as I'm concerned.
Well, I can't disagree.
> {ghajlu'wI'} and {ngeHlu'wI'} just crack me up.
I think they are worth thinking about. Briefly. Sort of like
the sound of one hand clapping.
> So, I saw three articles this time by people prying apart basic grammatical
> principles and stretching interpretations of canon to try to be able to
> invent new, even more incredibly ridiculous word formations and neologisms,
> Glen being the biggest stinker about this, and not even so much as a whole
> paragraph of Klingon, save Okrand's barely grammatical, over-simplified
> translations of the stuff on the Skybox cards that he was just hired, paid,
> and given a deadline to do.
I'm a little less critical of the Okrand stuff, but I suppose I
should go back and study it some more.
> Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the journal. What I would like to see out of
> it is more original Klingon text. Most people are simply far too lazy to
> really achieve any real proficiency in the use of Klingon, in its raw written
> or spoken forms. Well, guess I'm just going to have to take it upon myself to
> change that.
The question then becomes, "Would such a Klingon article fit
the scholarly format of HolQeD?" Would it survive the peer
review process? Could it be considered anonymous, given the the
few people who COULD write such an article each have very
recognizable styles in their Klingon writing, which would be
ESPECIALLY recognizeable to the few peer editors who could read
it?
> Guido
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |