tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 01 21:56:06 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Film summary
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Film summary
- Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 21:55:01 -0800
At 07:13 98-02-01 -0800, tlhIbwI' wrote:
}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.
qul, HItlhej?
}Would "Fire and I walk" work?
}
}mayIt qul jIH je
Qapbej.
}(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.)
Consider {mutlhej} and {matay'taHvIS} too.
}>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)?
vIparHa'.
}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'}?)
qaSpu'. DaH qaSqa'.
}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}.
To report speech with known verbs of saying is fairly simple. Write the
actual words that the person said or would have said, no English-style
aspect or person changes, and then put {<prefix>jatlh <speaker>} either
before or after the attributed words. The trick is that the prefix is
always the NO OBJECT prefix. The thing said is NOT the object of the verb.
jIyajbe' jIjatlh - I said I didn't understand.
ja' be' vISuv vIneH - The woman says she wants to fight
nuqDaq yuch bopol jay' jach yaS - The officer yelled "Where do you keep the
%$@! chocolate?"
Note that the two different forms of showing speech in English are
translated the same way. There isn't a direct speech/reported speech form.
Outstanding arguments that may have spooked you are:
1. what exactly *is* a verb of saying? We know that ja', jatlh and jach
are, but what about ra'? SIv? In English anything can be a verb of saying.
"I don't know anything about it," she gargled, struggling against the
chokehold.
2. The verbs of saying can take objects and there is some controversy about
what are valid objects for which verbs. But as speech is NOT the object,
just use the no object prefix and this one won't affect that.
}>}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.
Actually, as I moved that I intended to mention why and forgot to. First
off, I don't think it makes a difference worth fretting over, either way.
There is only one interpretation, whereever you put it. I think this turns
up in Krankor's latest article, and I agree with it, for the most part. I
saw {SeHbe''egh} as saying that what he does to himself is "not
controlling," as {SeH'eghbe'} as what he doesn't do to himself is control.
I have a bias towards putting {-be'} after other suffixes if the position
doesn't matter that much. I think I decided my reasoning wasn't worth
trying to explain, and then forgot to move the {-be'} back to the way you
had it.
}>{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."
Yes. Or "abused."
}>DaH Heghpu'mo' be'Hom ghonglaHbe' BOB.
}>or
}>Heghpu'mo' be'Hom DaH ghonglaHbe' BOB.
}
}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."?
Right.
}>}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.
}>majQa'. Qu' vIchupbogh Data'chu'ta'. jabbI'ID Daj Dalabta' 'ej bIghojlaw'
}>
}
}You have clearing accomplished the task I suggested?
"thoroughly" or "completely" not "clearing." You did exactly what I was
looking for.
}(Relative clauses, *growls*)
You understood it just fine.
}You have sent an interesting message and it seems you are
}learning?
bIyajchu'.
}>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).
Ah. You must remember that the {-bogh} coes on the verb of the SECONDARY
clause, not the main clause.
In your sentence the main clause is "the Ferengi dropped the mug" in mine it
is "the mug hit his bleeding shoulder."
Translate "The Ferengi dropped the mug which hit his bleeding shoulder."
}>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.
Grin, I wasn't thinking of that ambiguity.
}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.
You're recasting these to passive voice in English. Not the point. Combine
each of the possible subjects with each of the possible objects to get the
four possibilities. (Eight if you count the tickles/deserves.)
The man whom the alien respects
The alien who respects the man
tickles
the targ the bug bites.
the bug that bites the targ.
}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?
Oh oh. I haven't made my point at ALL. The object could be either Noun2 or
Noun1. I gave you two relative clauses in one example. I suppose I should
have started with one.
}But, for your meaning I would put the topic marker on the man.
}
}targh chopbogh ghew qotlh loD'e' vuvbogh nov
You have "The man whom the alien respects" fixed, but the object is still
ambiguous. Does he tickle the bug or the targ? This sentence requires TWO
{'e'}mey for full clarity.
}Can I try a few now?
Please do.
}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.
majQa'! Of course this could also be "I have a Ferengi that a targ will
eat," but I think you'd be prouder of the targ. :)
}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
majQa'. Dayaj. The alternate meaning is "I see a Romulan whom a Klingon
kills," but it amounts to the same thing.
}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.")
This one is quite ambiguous. I can see that the ambasador attacks the
Terran, but you need a topic marker to let me know which one plots revenge.
bortaS nab tera'ngan'e' HIvbogh tlhIngan Duy'a' (the Terran plots)
bortaS nab tera'ngan HIvbogh tlhIngan Duy'a''e' (the ambassador plots)
}Just wondering whether I'd need the {-taH} suffix because I'm never sure
}when to use that and when not to.
If the idea that the action is ongoing towards no particular conclusion is
important, use {-taH}. You're rarely wrong without it, it just adds
information. The only time it is absolutely required is if you use the
{-vIS} suffix. The only time it is technically wrong is when it takes the
object {'e'}. I'm more likely to complain if it's misused than if it's left
out where it could possibly be used.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian