tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 22 02:35:09 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC [repost] - lutHom
In article <7107ECAEC9ECD0119BBC00805F684B9C2F759A@VIPER>, Andeen, Eric
<[email protected]> writes
>> ===
>> lutHom 'oH.
>
>> nom meHDaq De'wI' ghun QeDpIn.
>maj.
>
>> pay' tlhopHomDaq So'Ha'law'pu' romuluSngan veSDuj 'e' jatlh ya.
>
>I really don't know why you used <tlhopHom> here. I would use <Duj tlhop>.
I was trying to suggest 'a small distance in front of'... but, as the
gracious charghwI' has pointed out for me, "any distance" involving an
enemy ship is unlikely to be unimportant.
>You're also trying to do an indirect qoute with <jatlh>, and we don't have
>any evidence that you can do that. <jatlh> only works with direct quotes,
>and you can put the quote before or after the <jatlh (subject)>.
'e' jatlh was very wrong (a re-read of TKD 6.2.5 helped)...
>pay' Duj tlhopDaq So'Ha'law'pu' romuluSngan veSDuj jatlh ya.
Understood. I'd probably have gone for "speech marks":
{Duj tlhopDaq So'Ha'law'pu' romuluSngan veSDuj} jatlh ya.
...just to make it clearer that it is a direct quotation.
>> HaStavaD mutlhob HoD.
>
>I don't understand what you're saying here. Is the captain asking about the
>display? If he's commanding you to put up a display, I would say < <HaSta
>yIcha'!> ra' HoD>. If it is the tactical display, replace <HaSta> with
><wIy>. And this is also a good place for Clipped Klingon, so you can drop
>the <yI-> prefix if you want to.
Understood... again, a matter of rewording something that comes fairly
cleanly in English into an 'OVS' style sentence in Klingon.
{HaSta yIcha'!} ra' HoD.
>> jIHeQta' 'a pagh tu'lu'!
>
>This is not a good place for <-ta'>. It's better without the aspect suffix.
Understood...
jIHeQ 'a pagh tu'lu'!
[English grammar *really* wants me to put a {pu'} on that, but since
Klingon is so ambiguous in timing, I guess this (^) is right.]
>> pIHbej HoD.
>
>maj. Good use of the other meaning of <pIH>.
>
>> wIyDaj 'olqa' 'e' ya ra' HoD.
>
>This doesn't quite work. I would use the same structure as in <HaSta yIcha'>
>above:
>
>yavaD <wIy yI'olqa'> ra' HoD.
Again, with help from charghwI', I rephrased with a purpose clause:
wIyDaj 'olqa'meH ya, ra' HoD.
>> bejpu' ya.
>
>Again, you don't need the aspect suffix. When the action happens, the
>tactical officer *is examining* the display. If you add <-pu'>, you are
>saying that the officer *had already finished examining* the display. Do you
>see the difference?
Understood... English grammar again. ;-) So:
bej ya.
>> QeDpInvaD yIt 'ej ngoqDaj ghun vInuD.
>
>For "I walked", you need the right prefix: <jI->. You should also use the
>suffix <-Daq> - you are walking to the location of the officer, not walking
>for his benefit.
charghwI' convinced me that {ghoS} might well be better here, so I can
drop -Daq [or -vaD].
><ngoq> is defined as "code", but I don't think it can apply to what
>programmers produce all day. When interpreting the meanings in TKD, you have
>to be as narrow as possible, and only choose the primary meaning of a word.
>So a "code" is a system for encrypting information. The <ghun> after <ngoq>
>really doesn't work either.
I had a feeling you were going to say that. ;-)
>I would just say <De'wI'Daj vInuD> here.
Fair enough. After a rethink, I'd try the sentence:
QeDpIn vIghoS 'ej mIwDaj ghunpu'bogh vInuD.
[mIw ghunpu'bogh] =~ programming == 'method in which he programmed'
>> muHaghmoH!
>
>Do'Ha' ya. tlhIbba'.
>
>> mujchu' ngoqqoqDaj.
>
>Same comments as above about <ngoq>. In this case, I would say
><ghunHa'qu'ba'>. It's a different way of phrasing it, but it's a more
>Klingon way. Instead of concentrating on the thing (noun) that got screwed
>up, you are concentrating on the action (verb) of screwing up.
"he obviously misprogrammed." Fair enough. Since one doesn't program
much else other than a computer, can we jettison the object and
literally leave it at:
ghunHa'qu'ba'!
>> veSDuj tu'lu'be'bogh leghmoH!
>
>I would have said <tu'be'lu'bogh> here, but I won't say yours is wrong.
>Okrand has said there is a difference between <-lu'be'> and <-be'lu'>, but
>he has not told us exactly what it is, and I'm not going to speculate on
>what it might be - not today, anyway.
>
>> QeHqu' HoD. QaghmeyDajmo', bIghHa'vaD QeDpIn ngeH HoD.
>
>I would probaly say <ya Qaghmo'> instead of <QaghDajmo'> since there are two
>"s/he"'s floating around in this sentence, and it's clearer to specify which
>one. I also don't see multiple errors, but I suppose that depends on how you
>count, so the plural is fine.
>
>Same comments about <-vaD> and <-Daq>: <bIghHa'Daq>.
charghwI' suggested the logic behind this sentence was very icky [who
does the sending, and where does it happen?]. Maybe:
QeDpIn Qaghmo', qama' moj. bIghHa'Daq jaH 'e' raD HoD.
[hefty snip]
>In English, you would say "His answer was wrong". In Klingon you would say
><jangHa'>.
'he badly-answered'. Understood.
So, if I've got this right, the corrected story should be:
lutHom 'oH.
nom meHDaq De'wI' ghun QeDpIn.
{Duj tlhopDaq So'Ha'law'pu' romuluSngan veSDuj} jatlh ya.
{HaSta yIcha'!} ra' HoD.
jIHeQ 'a pagh tu'lu'!
pIHbej HoD.
wIyDaj 'olqa'meH ya, ra' HoD.
bej ya.
QeDpIn vIghoS 'ej mIwDaj ghunpu'bogh vInuD.
muHaghmoH! ghunHa'qu'ba'!
veSDuj tu'lu'be'bogh leghmoH!
QeDpIn Qaghmo', qama' moj. bIghHa'Daq jaH 'e' raD HoD.
Not bad, I think, for a first 'real' effort. ;-)
-- qonwI'
--
Matt Johnson <mailto:[email protected]>