tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 13 20:10:41 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Hov veSmey
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Hov veSmey
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 04:06:01 UT
February 13, 1997 5:39 PM EST, jatlh Perry J. Brulotte:
> vengHom 'el yav Duj.
Why {vengHom}? Mos Eisley was probably the biggest urban area on Tattooine!
{veng} would be fine.
> yav Duj ngaS cha' qoq, qanbogh loD, Qupbogh loD je.
The most glaring error here is the reversal of subject and object around the
verb {ngaS}. The two droids don't contain the speeder.
{yav Duj} is an acceptable substitute for "land-speeder," I suppose, although
it could be equally applicable to a car with wheels. It doesn't really matter
here, as the speeder isn't the point.
While you *can* say {qanbogh loD} and {Qupbogh loD}, you don't have to. Use
can use qualitative verbs like {qan} and {Qup} as adjectives, coming after the
noun they modify.
cha' qoq, loD qan, loD Qup je ngaS yav Duj.
> yav Duj ghoS 'avwI'pu'.
This is a common omission: you need the suffix {lu-} with third-person plural
subject and singular object.
yav Duj lughoS 'avwI'pu'.
> jatlh DevwI', >ngu'bogh nav vIleghnIS.<
This is good. However, let me make a suggestion: {ngu'meH nav}. This means
"paper for the purpose of identifying." See TKD section 6.2.4 on purpose
clauses. This goes along the same lines as {DevmeH paq} "guidebook."
Again, there is nothing wrong with what you said.
> 'avwI' legh Qupbogh loD. bItlaw'.
Again, you can simply say {'avwI' legh loD Qup}.
> 'avwI' legh qanbogh loD.
Again, {loD qan}.
> jatlh, >ngu'bogh navDaj yIleghnISbe'.<
{yIleghnISbe'} doesn't make any sense. Obi-Wan is making a statement of fact,
"You don't need to see his identification," but you've used an imperative
prefix here. Don't. Use the normal suffix.
ngu'meH navDaj DaleghnISbe'.
> ghopDaj nechmoH jatlhDI'.
Ooohhh! Very clever use of {nech}! You might consider using {loQ} as an
adverbial for this sentence. Obi-Wan's hand movement was not very obvious; it
was slight.
> latlh 'avwI'pu' legh DevwI'.
I've mentioned in another recent post that we don't have any evidence that you
can use {latlh} to modify another noun like this. Try to find another way to
do it. Here's one idea:
tlhejwI'Daj legh 'avwI'.
The guard sees his companions.
We're kinda stretching the meaning of {legh}, now. He may see them, but
that's not the point at all. Perhaps
tlhejwI'DajDaq tlhe' 'avwI'
The guard turns to his companions.
Or perhaps you can just dispense with the whole thing altogether:
tlhejwI'DajvaD jatlh 'avwI' . . .
> jatlh, >ngu'bogh navDaj wIleghnISbe'.<
> jatlh qanbogh loD, >qoqpu'vam tInejbe'.<
If this is really *meant* to be a command, you cannot use {-be'}. Read TKD
section 4.3 carefully and you'll find that with a command, you must use
{-Qo'}, not {-be'}.
Now, {qoqpu'vam tInejQo'} means "Don't search for these droids." I still
think that since the Force is used by Obi-Wan only in a passive sort of way
(un-Klingon, but true), you shouldn't translate this one as a command. But if
I say
qoqpu'vam bonejlI'be'.
You aren't looking for these droids.
it doesn't seem to have the right force. Not to worry! There's an answer!
(By the way, notice the {-lI'} suffix I've added? It does *wonders* for the
sentence.)
qoqpu'vam'e' bonejlI"be'.
As for these droids, you're not searching for them.
It emphasizes that the droids are the point of the sentence. "You're not
searching for THESE DROIDS (some other droids, obviously, but not these)."
> jatlh 'avwI', >qoqpu'vam DInejbe'.<
And I'd also alter this one to match:
qoqpu'vam'e' DInejlI'be'.
Note that your sentence is not wrong, but I feel that it's missing some of the
correct expression.
> jatlh qanbogh loD, >mejlaH.<
Klingon-like, but unfaithful, especially when we have the noun {malja'}.
jatlh loD qan, <malja'Daj ta' net chaw'>
The old man says, "He's permitted to accomplish his business."
> Qupbogh loD jatlh 'avwI'. >bImejlaH.<
And, of course, the Stormtrooper will follow suit:
loD QupvaD jatlh 'avwI', <malja'lIj Data' net chaw'.>
Don't forget the {-vaD}!
> jatlh qanbogh loD, >ghoS.<
Nice. I'm sure you used clipped Klingon intentionally, and it's quite
appropriate here.
> ghopDaj joq 'avwI'. >ghoS. ghoS.<
Not quite. Since in TKD we get two examples of {joq}, {joqwI'} "flag" and
{SuSmo' joqtaH} "it's fluttering in the breeze," we know that the *subject* of
{joq} must be the thing that is fluttering. The guard is not fluttering, he
is "causing" his hand to flutter, so you need to use {-moH}:
ghopDaj joqmoH 'avwI'.
----------------------------------------------------------
tlhaQchu' lut 'ay'vam. batlh 'oH Damughta'!
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97123.0