tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 07 18:42:23 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: A Skit: Parts One and Two
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: A Skit: Parts One and Two
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 20:45:57 -0500
LtBarrows writes:
>Well, here it is again: my skit tentatively entitled "qa'no leyna' je".
I've finally got some time to spend on this. I'll only be excerpting
the lines that I think need to receive comment.
> qa'no leyna' je (pong ru')
[Why not {ru' pong}? I've always preferred complete sentences.]
>(2) leyna' ('el): QaH!
Clipped speech does make sense here.
>(3) qa'no : qaQaHqu'nIS'a'? (Hagh. yev. Sagh.) qaStaH nuq?
Perhaps {SaghchoH}? And this is a rare occasion: "What's happening?" seems
to be a perfectly appropriate question here, instead of a weak pleasantry.
>(7) qa'no (yuv.): yIDoH. jIH HoSghaj law' Hoch HoSghaj puS.
Maybe {HIDoH}? I know you translated it "Back off," but that sounds a bit
idiomatic. Unlike the english phrase, you don't gain any brevity in the
Klingon by leaving off the "from me" meaning.
>(8) leyna' : qoH SoH 'ej bIHegh. Dujmaj vItIj. naDev Daratlhchugh qanISbe'.
I don't think {ratlh} works with an object. Make it {bIratlhchugh}.
>(10) (pa' ghoS leyna'. Hagh qa'no. lojmItmey SoQmoH.)
Your use of {pa' ghoS} here is very ambiguous. How about {pa'vo' ghoS}?
That way we know she's moving *from* somewhere, and because I think the
suffix {-vo'} acts a lot like {-Daq} it tends to indicate that the word
{pa'} means "room".
>(11) qa'no : naDev verghlu'be' Duj 'e' Sovbe'. tugh ngoDvam tu'. 'Iv qoH teH?
{naDev Duj verghlu'be'}. Remember, {-lu'} means there isn't a definite
subject, so nothing in the sentence should follow the verb it is on.
{'Iv qoH teH} sounds strained; I think it needs a real verb.
>(14) (DujDaq qetlI' leyna'. retlhDaq jaghpu' legh. qa'no pa'Daq chegh
>leyna' 'ach SoQ lojmIt tu'.)
{...SoQ lojmIt 'e' tu'}.
>(16) qa'no (Hagh.): Duj bItu'laHbe''a'?, leyna'?
I'd use {Sam} instead of {tu'} here.
>(17) leyna' : jatlh 'e' mev! naDev jaghpu'! ghoS!
{chol} or {chollI'} sounds better to me than {ghoS}.
>(20) qa'no: maj. majQa'! (lojmIt poS.)
{lojmIt poSmoH}. (There's no reason to clip the stage directions.)
>(22) qa'no (lojmIt SoQ): chay' jaghpu'ma' DIHoHlaH 'e' vISov. HItlhap.
> (pa'Daq retlh ghoS.)
The more I think about it, the less I like {chay'} for this meaning. How
about something like {jaghpu'ma' DIHoHlaHmeH mIw vISov}?
>(24) qa'no: jaghpu'ma' Qaw' jorwI'vam. Ha'. (pegh lojmItDaq ghoS chaH.)
The last sentence doesn't seem right. {ghoS} usually has a destination or
a point of departure, not something *through which* one travels. I'm sure
some will argue that the door can be considered a "course", but I'm just as
sure that there are better ways to say this. And since the verb {pegh} can
mean "be secret", a "secret door" is {lojmIt pegh}. How about these:
{lojmIt pegh lulo'} or {lojmIt pegh lu'el} or {lojmIt peghDaq tlheD chaH}.
>(25) (jolpa' ghoS leyna' je qa'no. tugh lojmIt pa'Daq latlh ghor jaghpu'.
> jor jorwI'. Dej pa' ej
{...leyna' qa'no je}. Keep those conjunctions where they belong! I am a
bit uncomfortable using {latlh} in complex phrases; I can't quite figure
out the word order and where the {-Daq} should go when trying to translate
"the door in the other room". Try {pa' wa'DIch lojmIt} "the first room's
door".
>(26) Hegh jaghpu' law'. lojmIt pegh chaw' poStaHmo' qa'no je leyna' tlha'laH
>jaghmey puS.)
The second sentence has more problems than I can easily fix; I think it
needs to be rewritten from scratch. Care to try again?
>(27) SuvwI' jegh (jolpa' 'el) : SIbI' pejegh! SunarghlaHbe'!
{SuvwI' jegh} means "he surrenders the warrior". {SuvwI' jagh} would
mean "the warrior's enemy". Perhaps for "enemy warrior" you should say
{jagh SuvwI'}, but a simple {jagh} would work.
>(29) leyna' : vISoQbejta' jay'!
"I did certainly be closed it $#@%!" Looks like you lost a {-moH}.
>(30) (HIv SuvwI'pu' jegh. wa' nuHDaj chaghmoH qa'no. SuvwI' DuQ qa'no.)
{SuvwI'pu' jegh} again? :-) {nuHDaj chagh wa'} is a complete sentence
with both subject and object; if you put {-moH} on the verb, its subject
becomes the object, and there's nowhere for the object to go. {-moH}
doesn't get along well with transitive verbs. There's an easy formulaic
solution to this: add the sentence {'e' qaSmoH}. It's not always the
right way to translate the idea, but it's often worth trying. So we
get {nuHDaj chagh wa' 'e' qaSmoH qa'no}.
>(32) (SuvwI' pup leyna'. SuvwI' pum 'ej DuQ je HoH leyna'. Haw' latlh.
>jolvoyDaq Qam qa'no
>(33) leyna' je. DujchajDaq jol.)
The second sentence ought to be {pum SuvwI' 'ej DuQ leyna' 'ej HoH} or
something similar. {SuvwI'} is {pum}'s subject, and {leyna'} should show
up on the first verb of which she is the subject. {jolvoy'} lost a {'}.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj