tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 25 19:38:18 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: qID
ja' Edy:
> There are 3 actions. He become quiet, think about for few
>minutes (implicity) and then he said. Pehaps (tamchoH jupDaj. vaj jatlh)
>could be better.
{vaj} should only be used if there's a cause-and-effect relationship here.
If you just want to indicate sequence, simply put the sentences in order.
TKW page 5: {bogh tlhInganpu', SuvwI'pu' moj, Hegh} "Klingons are born,
live as warriors, then die."
>>>- vay'vaD Daja'chugh vaj bI..
>>>- If you say it to anyone I ..
>>
>>You can probably leave off the {-vaD}. We know the object of {ja'}
>>can be the person being told.
>
> It's causing me some confusion. In this case, the object
>of {jatlh} is the thing that the man knows and {vay'} is
>the indirect object. (If you say that thing to anyone) or
>(if you comment this thing).
"Say it to someone" and "tell someone" seem close enough in meaning to me
that I'd just say {vay' Daja'chugh} "if you tell anyone". I don't think it
is necessary to refer to what is being told here.
>>> (bong qoH qep)
>>> (Acidently he met a fool)
>>
>>{qep} "meeting" is a noun. I think you want {ghom} "meet, encounter".
>>{bong} is indeed "accidentally", but I don't quite understand why you
>>used it here.
>
> {rut qoH ghom} (sometimes he encoutered a fool) better?
This is an accurate translation, but I'm still not at all sure what you're
trying to say. Maybe you mean "Eventually he met a fool." Maybe you mean
"At some time (which is not further specified), he met a fool." Does one of
these fit the idea you're trying to express?
>>>- *hummm* Sovlu'meH Doch tu'lu' 'ach 'e' DaSovbe', qar'a'
>>>- hummm .. so .. there is something to know but you don't know that, right?
>>
>>Which "that" do you mean in "you don't know that"? Is it the previous
>>sentence, or is it the thing which is not known? Using {'e'} says to
>>me "There's something to know, but you don't know that there is
>>something to know." If instead you mean "There's something to know,
>>but you don't know what that thing is", you should use {Dochvetlh}.
>
> It's really very confused sentence, but it is the real idea.
The "real idea" or not, it's confused enough that I can't easily follow it.
I've never felt comfortable with conjunctions linking the two halves of a
Sentence-As-Object. Is there some other way you might say this?
>>> (wa'nI' poj qoH 'ej jatlh):
>>> (the fool analised the circunstances and said):
>>
>>I won't complain too much about this {'ej}, but it still seems like it
>>would work as two separate sentences, and you'll get a lot less grief
>>from some people about its style if you do it that way. :-)
>
> :-)) {wa'nI' poj qoH. vaj jatlh} should sounds better.
It sounds a *little* better. Again, {vaj} implies that he spoke *because*
he analyzed the situation. If you don't mean it that way, leave it off.
>>>- Dochvetlh yIja'Qo'
>>>- Don't tell that
>>
>>{Dochvetlh} is good for "that", but I still don't think it's a valid
>>object for {ja'}. Maybe {vay' yIja'Qo'} "don't tell anyone"?
>
> I think there is 2 different ways to express the idea. The
>same thing to verb {nob}. {Dujvam chonob} "give me the ship"
>or {jIHvaD Duj Danob} "give the ship to me".
We've only seen {ja'} used with the person spoken to as its object. The
object of {jatlh} is the thing spoken, and {jatlh} ought to work with the
beneficiary-shortcut prefix usage. But {ja'} already has the recipient
as the object; the prefix shortcut doesn't work in the other direction.
>>>- bISov ..
>>>- You know ..
>>
>>The ".." here seems to indicate that there's something more to the
>>sentence. It would have to be an object, so it should be {DaSov}.
>>I've got no idea what that object would be, though. What does the
>>fool mean here?
>
> This is the "soul" of the joke. There is something to be known
>but nobody knows what. :-))
Oh. It doesn't work as well in Klingon, because you have to elide the
*beginning* of the sentence to have the desired effect
It's probably just me, but I seem to have a difficult time seeing what's
funny about these stories you're writing. Maybe I'm looking too hard at
the grammar, or maybe I'm just getting fuzzy-headed from the dual effort of
reading the Klingon *and* English translations from what's in your brain.
Heck, maybe my sense of humor isn't as good as I thought?
But what you're writing *is* understandable. Some of the odd constructions
I encounter are apparently influenced by Portugese. I don't yet know your
"style" well enough to be certain whether you've correctly translated an odd
statement or translated something in an oddly incorrect way. :-) I hope you
don't mind when I question what you meant by something that is grammatical
but doesn't quite fit the context the way I'm expecting.
-- ghunchu'wI'