tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 20 10:15:11 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIjang (Re: KLBC: HIboQqa' (cha'))

ghItlh Soqra'tIS:
>>>vaj *yaSu jatlhpu': HIghoS, ghotpu' boSwI' SamojmoH 'ej. *maQ 1:17
>>
>>I don't think {vaj} has the right meaning here.  Its definition is given
>>as "so, then, thus, in that case" -- it doesn't seem to indicate an event
>>simply following another one in time.  I think it's supposed to refer to
>>a cause-and-effect relationship.  I'm not familiar with the reasons behind
>>the biblical usage of "then", so maybe it *does* mean "thus" in this case,
>>but it doesn't seem right to me.
>
>                    ngoDna' 'oH'a'
>         ghItlh TKD 5.4 p56 {vaj Daleghpu'}

Some context here might help your confusion.  Valkris has just finished
transmitting the Genesis data to Kruge, and  she says "You will find it
useful."  Kruge's response is, "Then you have seen it."  "Then" doesn't
mean "afterwards, later" here.  It refers to a conclusion he made based
on the previous sentence, and could also be translated "so" or "thus".

>           qatlh 'e' DuQuchHa'moHlaw''a'

If you use {qatlh}, you shouldn't also use {-'a'} unless you have a very
specific meaning in mind.  I've seen examples of their use together that
make some sort of sense, but this isn't one of them.

{'e'} is always the object of a sentence, but the verb prefix {Du-} says
that the subject is "you".  You apparently intend the subject to be "the
sentence I'm talking about", but you can't use {'e'} for that.  You can
get away with having the subject unstated here.  {qatlh DuQuchHa'moHlaw'?}

>                  jIHvaD Qap qechlIj
>                       jImIS

What idea are you referring to?  Now *I* am confused.

>
>>Your word order is broken.  Quick refresher course in Klingon sentence
>>structure:  OBJECT, then VERB, then SUBJECT.  The subject comes last.
>>Who is speaking?  The subject of the sentence is speaking.  Where does
>>the subject go?  After the verb.  {jatlhpu' *yaSu}.
>
>                    HIja' HISlaH
>                 'e' qay'qu' vIghaj

nuqjatlh?  "Yes, yes.  Is really a problem that.  I have it."  Huh?
Pick a "yes" and stay with it.  Again, what's {'e'} doing here?  {qay}
doesn't work with an object; if you're trying to use {'e'} as its subject,
you can't.  What's the object of {vIghaj}?  I can't find it.  Maybe, just
maybe, you're trying to say "I have a real problem with that."  If so, it
would be something like {jIHvaD qay'qu' qechvam}.

>                <...vIteqlu'pu'...>

nuqjatlh?  "I have been taken off."  Sorry, I don't understand this at all.

>>The whole phrase seems almost hopelessly metaphorical anyway.  I don't
>>think trying to translate Bible quotes is a productive way to learn the
>>Klingon language.
>
>Believe it or not, somehow it does make more sense to me AND it seems to be
>easier for me to understand.

I didn't say it was a bad way to learn the Bible; in fact, translating
something is usually a very good way to understand the source material.
But it's hard to translate something well if you're not fluent in the
target language, and if you don't yet know what you don't know, you'll
be making lots of small errors that could more easily be corrected if
you were trying to speak your own words.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level