tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 13 10:32:11 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: translation project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 21:15:16 -0700
>From: "Donald E. Vick" <[email protected]>
Interesting choice of toic... :)
>che'wI'
>The Ruler
>ghItlhta'bogh *nIqolo *maHI'avelI qaSDI' joHma' wa'SaD vaghvatlh wa'maH vagh
>which Nicolo Macchiavelli wrote in the year 1515
I kind of like using "ghItlhta'bogh" here as you have it. It's *not* a
"headless" relative clause (I don't like those), but as you have the
English translation: the head noun is the title. Sort of like the way
tables of contents sometimes are written: "Chapter 11. (in which Tonto,
cleverly disguised as a teabag, finds he is getting into hot water.)" I
think "ghItlhbogh" is better: which he *wrote*, not which he had written.
"qaStaHvIS" works better than "qaSDI'"; he wrote it *while* that year was
going on, not "as soon as it occured." I see "joHma'" which I presume is
part of a translation of A.D., but you're missing the "DIS"/year!
>'ay' wa' - chay' yoSmey che'lu' 'ej chay' bIH Suqlu' qelbogh
>chapter one - which considers how one rules countries, and how one obtains
> them.
And look, an example of the style I just mentioned. Only it doesn't work
in Klingon here, because the head noun is the subject of the relative
clause but is at the beginning instead of the end. I'd can the relative
clause altogether and just say "blah blah blah 'e' qel." (Chapter 1. It
deals with....) You need the 'e', because the preceding *sentence* is the
object. It might be argued that you would do better with constructions
involving mIw than with the question-word "chay'", since the English "how"
here is a relative marker and not a question-word (and Klingon doesn't
necessarily do it the same way). It probably is better in this case to use
things like "yoSmey luche'lu'meH mIw" (note lu- on che'; the object is
plural and -lu' inverts the sense of prefixes) here, though it could be
argued that it's something like "How does one rule and obtain countries?
It considers that." Try jey or jon instead of Suq.
>loD che'taHbogh Hoch yoS Hoch HoS je che' wa' che'wI' pagh 'oH luche'
>ghom wIvbogh loDmey.
>All countries and all powers which rule over men, one ruler rules them,
>or else a group which men choose rules them.
What does "all powers" here really mean, or add to the sentence? No man
rules the "force" of gravity... It could be woQ, or just dropped. Just
because the English has it doesn't mean it adds anything substantive
(ref. just about anything said by politicians in English--or anything
else). Similarly, though the English uses "man"/"men", that's only English
idiom for "people" (under fire now as sexist). Why export English's
problems? Stick with nuv or ghot.
I don't follow the structure either... oh wait, I do. Hrm, if you're doing
"Hoch yoS"/each country (see the HolQeD article in which Okrand says that
Hoch + non-explicitly-plural noun means "each" and not "all") you might
want "luche'taH"... but you have a compound subject (which arguably could
be "qoj")... It's pretty hard to follow; a disambiguating "-'e'" to flag
the head-nouns could help. Still kind of deeply embedded though.
"ghom['e'] luwIvbogh nuvpu'", btw. Don't forget the lu- and the -pu'
suffix.
>no'vo' law' yoS Hevlu' pagh chu' yoS.
>One receives a country from many ancestors, or else it is new.
"no' law'vo'": type-5 suffixes go on adjectival verbs following nouns.
Otherwise good.
>rut chu'chu' yoSmey chu'.
>Sometimes new countries are completely new.
*shrug* looks okay to me.
>*mIlan, *verancheSqo *SorSa je wIqelDI', ghu'vam wIlegh.
>When we consider Milan and Francesco Sforza, this situation we see.
Looks okay, though wItu' may be better than wIlegh. Should be DIqelDI',
though.
>All proper names are transliterated and flagged with a *.
Fine. I often prefer not transliterating at all (especially in a situation
like this, where it's useful to be able to recognize the name), but if you
transliterate, flagging is very helpful.
>rut 'oH tlhap no'vo' latlh yoS Hevbogh che'wI'.
>Sometimes a ruler who received a country from his ancestors takes it.
Hmmm... OK. Presuming "latlh" works like "Hoch", which it may. Maybe
Hevpu'bogh: one who has (already) received a country...
>*neypuS, *Speyn vodleH je wIqelDI', ghu'vam wIlegh.
>When we consider Naples and the king of Spain, this situation we see.
See above.
>tIghmo' che'wI' pabqanglaw' yoS tlhaplu'bogh, pagh tIghmo' tlhab neH chaH.
>A country which one takes is willing to obey a ruler because of custom,
>or else they want to be free because of custom.
I think of "pab" as following rules or laws, not a leader. Probably "lob"
would be better. I think it's easier to understand if you say "tlhab chaH
luneH."
>"Willing to obey because of custom" was my rework of "accustomed to
>obey."
OK.
>yoSmeyvam Suqlu'DI' nuHDaj lo' che'wI', pagh latlh nuH, pagh Do', pagh
>po'.
>When one obtains these countries, the ruler uses his own weapons, or else
>another's weapons, or else he is lucky, or else he is skillful.
"pagh latlh nuH" doesn't fit in the series; you've joined several clauses
(correctly) with the sentence-conjunction "pagh", but "latlh nuH" is a
noun-phrase, and it doesn't fit. You should say "pagh latlh nuH lo'."
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMmEnkcppGeTJXWZ9AQFZhwL+NUlFYSVB/TxkXWZOXWEO6i0WWRkqIm/T
yqeizolnYEmG3rh4eyaZ9eTciVra0onSYKGsXIBVB/33TO158uzxa8NP6KNCjqOc
nKym3bAhqq7Qwqops1JuIdADF9r4xXGw
=TWiT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----