tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 01 07:03:53 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Film summary
In article <[email protected]>, Qov
<[email protected]> writes
>At 00:48 98-01-30 -0800, tlhIbwI' wrote:
>}Well, I saw Qov suggest to someone that a film summary would be quite a
>}good idea. Don't think I've seen the film she wanted doing but I'll try
>}my hand at a different one.
>
>majQa'.
>
>}"cha' HuDmey nIb: mutlha' qul" 'oH *film* pong'e'
>
>I read this and tried to construct an English meaning, suspecting perhaps
>"followed by fire." I got "Twin Peaks" right away.
>
Well, the story goes like this. I wanted to translate the title more or
less literally "Fire Walk With Me". Okay, so far so good. Being as I
am incompetent (tlhIbwI' jIH) I couldn't translate that. So, I then
thought that "Fire Follows Me" would be about right. I thought about
phrasing it as an imperative but that didn't seem right. But being as
you couldn't work it out, it seems that my translation of the title is a
pretty bad one and I would appreciate a better one.
Would "Fire and I walk" work?
mayIt qul jIH je
(I started thinking about this one when I thought "How would I say, 'I
went to the shops with my friend?'" The best I could think of was "My
friend and I went to the shops" and thought might work here.)
>}be'Hom lut ja' *film*
>
>I accept the thing reported as the object of {ja'} but this is
>controversial. Use {Del} or {much} instead of {ja'} to skirt the controversy.
>
>}*film*Daq Hegh be'Hom <<I can hear Qov cringing>>
>}The girl dies in the film (yes, locatives with non-physicals but I don't
>} know how to express it otherwise)
>
>At least you've saved me typing the explanation of WHY you shouldn't do this.
>How about {qaStaHvIS *film*} - although some might argue it sounds like she
>dies in the theatre. Or {be'Hom Hegh much}. There are lots of ays to do it
>without implying that she dies in the silver-coated cellulose.
>
So, instead of qaStaHvIS *film* would qaStaHvIS lut, Hegh be'Hom work
(during the story, the girl dies)?
Actually, looking up that qaStaHvIS gave me another question I want to
ask. How do I give the idea of something having happened before and
then happening another time? I can't find words for again or
repeatedly. Basically, I want to be able to say "It is happening
again." (As said by the giant {loD'a'}?)
But I would also like to be able to say "He says....." and I don't know
how the speaking verbs work because there's so much argument over them.
I get the impression that, at one point, MO has actually given some
instructions about how to use them and people argue over the logic of it
rather than what he said but I'm still not sure. I'm mainly thinking of
{jatlh}.
>}ghaH HoH vavDaj
>}SeHbe''egh vavDaj
>}Her father is not in control of himself (relative clause, possibly?)
>
>Nothing wrong with these sentences. You could say:
>
>ghaH HoH SeH'eghbe'bogh vavDaj
>"Her father, who cannot control himself, kills her," but I think it sounds
>better in both languages as two sentences. I should mention that some
>Klingonists don't accept {-bogh} for descriptive relative clauses -- what
>that is. If she had two fathers and it as the one who couldn't control
>himself then it would be restrictive and those people would accept it.
>
I don't want to stamp on your corrections but I would question the word
order of {SeH'eghbe'bogh}. I phrased mine {SeHbe''egh} (bloody double
glottal stop) to emphasise that he was not in control. Negating {-'egh}
implies, to me at least, that it's not himself that he's in control of
but he could be in control of someone else.
>}vavDaj SeH Dol
>}*BOB* 'oH Dol pong'e'
>
>*film*vam vISovbe'chu'. Hujqu'! qar pablIj.
>
>}ghaH HoH vavDaj 'e' chaw' be'Hom
>}Hegh neH
>}reH be'Hom vIghongpu' *BOB*
>}BOB has always (sexually) abused her (perfective necessary? and I wanted
>} to say for all of her life but couldn't)
>
>Here's a strange error. You've used the first person prefix, implying that
>YOU abused her.
That'll be me trying to remember a verb prefix and getting it wrong.
>
>{qaStaHvIS be'Hom yIn naQ be'Hom ghong BOB}
>
>Does that have grammar I need to explain, or you just didn't think of it?
>
I understand that as: "While the girl's entire life is happening, BOB
abuses the girl." Or, in proper English (not verbatim translation) "BOB
abuses her for her entire life."
>}DaH Heghpu' be'Hom, vIghongbe' *BOB*
>}Now she has died, BOB cannot abuse her
>
>Same problem with {vI-}, and a couple of situations you haven't recognized.
>
>This is a cause-effect sentence, with an implied "because" and you've left
>out the idea of "cannot." Here's how to fit it all in.
>
>DaH Heghpu'mo' be'Hom ghonglaHbe' BOB.
>or
>Heghpu'mo' be'Hom DaH ghonglaHbe' BOB.
>
>The things to note are the {-mo'} on the verb of the action that is the
>reason for the other action, and the {-laH} on the verb that is the action
>BOB cannot perform. The two positions of {DaH} have slightly differnt shades
>of meaning. Not that differnt here, sometimes more important.
>
So would the former be "Now she has died, BOB cannot abuse her" and the
latter be "The girl has died, so BOB cannot abuse her now."?
>}HeghDI', tlheghDaq Doq jaH
>}When she dies, she goes to a red room
>
>This was the only sentence I had to check your notes for. (The others I
>just checked afterwards to answer your questions). Look up {tlhegh} again.
That'll be me being unable to see the difference between room (pa') and
rope (tlhegh) which are next to one another.
>Assuming you mean that she went to a {pa' Doq}, now look the end of TKD 4.4.
Ah-ah! Seems very odd but our's is not to reason why (the following bit
sounds like it probably started off as a Klingon proverb).
>Here the noun suffix actually goes on the adjective, not the noun.
>{pa' DoqDaq jaH}
>"She goes to a red room."
>
>}tlheghDaq Doq, HeghDaj HaDwI' qIH
>}In the red room, she meets (for the first time) the one who will study
>} her death
>
>Same correction on {tlheghDaq Doq}
>
>Hmm. "She meets her death's scholar." It works. Do you like it?
No, not really. I was looking for detective or some variation on that.
(Basically, an FBI agent goes to the town to investigate her death.
When she dies, she meets him in the room. {pa' DoqDaq Qapbe' poH.}) I
couldn't find any words for "investigate" either.
>You could
>use a relative clause here. {HeghDaj HaDbogh nuv'e' qIH} "She meets the
>person who will study her death."
>
>}loD 'oH HeghDaj HaDwI'
>}*Dale* 'oH loD pong'e'
>}*angel* lulegh 'ej SaQ *Laura* (be'Hom)
>
>majQa'. Qu' vIchupbogh Data'chu'ta'. jabbI'ID Daj Dalabta' 'ej bIghojlaw'
>
You have clearing accomplished the task I suggested? (Relative clauses,
*growls*) You have sent an interesting message and it seems you are
learning?
>}Now I'll try putting that into English. I've repeated myself a bit in
>}parts because following my last missive using relative clauses I'm not
>}too sure I want to have my work ripped to tiny pieces again. I'd
>}appreciate a little primer on how to do them on one or two bits because
>}the TKD is a little awkward at describing them.
>
>Sure. A relative clause is a clause whose subject or object is the subject
>or object of another clause. See a posting called "Re: KLBC Poetry (the
>child is happy)" sent at the same time as this one for some more examples of
>these.
>
<snip - example of targ which I think I can cope with, just about>
>
>More complicated:
>
>{regh volchaHDaj} "His shoulder was bleeding."
>{volchaHDaj qIp HIvje'} "The mug hit his shoulder."
>{HIvje' chagh verengan} "The Ferengi dropped the mug"
>
>reghbogh volchaHDaj qIp HIvje' chaghbogh verengan
>This could mean either:
>"The mug the Ferengi dropped hit his bleeding shoulder."
>or
>"The Ferengi who dropped the mug hit his bleeding shoulder."
Ah, I can just about see both meanings. I think I'd have originally
translated the first as:
The Ferengi dropped the mug which hit his bleeding shoulder.
And then re-arranged it to give something close to what you put. (Much
more wordy and bad though).
>
>Disambiguate with the topic marker {'e'}:
>reghbogh volchaHDaj qIp HIvje''e' chaghbogh verengan
>
>Now it is only the mug that could do the hitting.
>
>(Note: it is possible that {chagh} means to drop as in "I dropped to the
>floor" and that "drop a mug" should be {HIvje' chaghmoH}. Unknown, but the
>presense or absence of {-moH} does not affect this relative clause.)
>
>Here's a test: What possible meanings could this sentence have, and where
>do you put {'e'} to make it mean only "The man whom the alien respects
>tickles the targ that the bug bites."
>
>{targh chopbogh ghew qotlh loD vuvbogh nov}
The bug bites the targ <targh chop ghew>
The alien respects the man <loD vuv nov>
Hmmm... tickle and deserve are the same verb. Could be interesting.
Something tickles the something
The man who is respected by the alien tickles the targ that is bitten by
the bug.
The alien who respects the man tickles the targ that is bitten by the
bug.
I just want to check something though. Say I have a sentence
constructed like this...
Noun1 RelativeVerb(-bogh) Noun2 NormalVerb Noun3
The object of the normal verb can only be Noun2, right? Basically, I
just want to check that there is no way I could have read your example
so that I was tickling the bug?
But, for your meaning I would put the topic marker on the man.
targh chopbogh ghew qotlh loD'e' vuvbogh nov
>
>}Well, that's the film in a very bad nut shell (me basically picking out
>}easy-ish points to express). Like I say, if I'd been writing that in
>}English I would have said something like
>}
>}"In the red room, she meets (for the first time) the person who will
>}study her death who is man whose name is Dale."
>
>And if you wrote that in English and submitted it me as an editor I'd write
>"Run-on sentence" on it in red, and hand it back. :)
>
Hmmm... bugger. That probably was pushing it, though.
Can I try a few now?
I have a targ. {targh vIghaj}
The targ eats Ferengi. {verengan Sop targh}
Add -bogh to the secondary sentence's verb and drop it in, so...
verengan Sopbogh targh vIghaj
I have a targ who eats Ferengi.
I see a Klingon. {tlhIngan vIlegh}
The Klingon kills the Romulan. {romuluSngan HoH tlhIngan}
I see a Klingon who kills the Romulan.
romuluSngan HoHbogh tlhIngan vIlegh
The Klingon Ambassador attacks the Terran.
{tera'ngan HIv tlhIngan Duy'a'}
The Terran plots revenge {bortaS nab tera'ngan}
bortaS nabbogh tera'ngan HIv tlhIngan Duy'a'
The Klingon Ambassador attacks the Terran who plots revenge.
bortaS nab tera'ngan HIvbogh tlhIngan Duy'a'
The Klingon Ambassador who attacks the Terran plots revenge (okay, so
that one doesn't make much sense because if he attacks him why does he
plot revenge for later. It might be better as "The Ambassador who
attacked the Terran plots revenge.")
Just wondering whether I'd need the {-taH} suffix because I'm never sure
when to use that and when not to.
--
tlhIbwI'