tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 25 11:06:32 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC
- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:07:09 -0400
At 01:52 PM 8/23/96 -0700, Laurel Beckley wrote:
>I have written a story in tlhIngan Hol. I read it to SuStel, and he
>suggested I should post it here. English translation will follow. Here
>it is.
Okay, let's take a look. {{:)
>yotlhDaj Qam wIjwI'.
"In his field" is <yotlhDajDaq>. What you have here is "A farmer stands his
fields", which doesn't make any sense. -Daq conveys the "in" notion. Since
you used -Daq in the next sentence, I think this might have just been a
"brain fart", where you wanted -Daq, and just forgot to tack it on. (Hey,
it happens to the best of us {{:/ ).
>ghopDajDaq betleHDaj qeng.
Nothing wrong with this sentence that I can see.
>tIrDaj legh.
Nothing wrong here, either.
>betleHDaj tlhap 'ej tIrDaj pe'lI'.
While this is grammatically correct, I think you would do better to explain
the concept of using his betleH to cut the grain as "He uses his betleH in
order to cut his grain." It might "flow" a bit better:
tIrDaq pe'meH, betleHDaj lo'lI'.
>ghaH SuvwI.
You are missing a ' on SuvwI'. I suspect that was a typo. <ghaH> is a
pronoun meaning "him/her (speech capable)." I think you mis-memorized
<ghoS>, which would mean "approach":
ghoS SuvwI'
>>SoH SuvlaHbe'chu'. tIr pe' neH betleHlIj.< jatlh SuvwI'.
If "you" is the subject of <Suv>, why is <SoH> at the end of the sentence?
{{:) You also need a verb prefix to match your subject, in this case it
would be bI-. I'm not sure if <neH> should go after <pe'> here. The way
you have it, it sounds like "You betleH is merely cutting the grain (as
opposed to cutting it in two, or chopping it into bits)." If you mean "Your
betleH is cutting mere grain", then the <neH> should go after <tIr>.
>jangbe' wIjwI'.
Nothing wrong here.
>tIrDaj pe'lI'.
-taH might be better here than -lI'. -lI' implies that he is going to stop
sometime soon. -taH implies that it is an on-going process, and it might
add a bit more "flavour" to your story at this point. It might add more if
you replace it where it appears a few lines up as well.
>Hagh SuvwI'.
This is fine.
>>verengan DajeylaHbe'pu'< jatlh SuvwI'.
I don't think you need -pu' here. -pu' suggested that he couldn't in the
past (relative to the story), whereas just saying "You cannot defect a
Ferengi!" would work just fine.
>pay' SuvwI' HIv wIjwI'.
This is fine also.
>nom Suv.
>tugh Heghpu' SuvwI'.
This is actually "Soon the warrior dies."
If you want to say "Soon the warrior is dead" then you use either -pu' or
-ta'... and this is a case where you would. If you don't understand this,
please ask... aspect is weird, when you are used to tense... I'm still
getting used to it!
>tIrDaj pe'lI' wIjwI'.
Again, -taH might be better here... that depends on the impression you want
to make with your story.
>Here's the English.
>
>A farmer stands in his field. He carries his betleH in his hand. He
>sees his grain. He takes his betleH and he cuts his grain. A warrior
>approaches him. "You clearly can't fight. Your betleH merely cuts
>grain", says the warrior. The farmer doesn't answer. He cuts his grain.
>The warrior laughs. "You couldn't defeat a Ferengi", says the warrior.
>Suddenly the farmer attacks the warrior. They fight quickly. Soon the
>warrior is dead. The farmer cuts his grain.
>
>That's it. How did I do?
It looks really good to me... other than one or two grammatical errors, all
my commetns were more on *style*... why don't you post this to the list in
general (with said grammar corrections)?
Very nice!
majQa'!
>Laurel
>[email protected]
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet
Klingon speaker and net junkie!
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...