tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 06 03:19:04 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: logh veQ

mulughmoH ghunchu'wI'

>pongwIj DaghItlhHa'pu'.  <ghunchu'wI'> yIqaw.
>wej maqIHchuqmo' jIHvaD qIgh pong yIlo'Qo'.


    ops .. forgive me.




>>    tera' bav janHommey law' tu'lu'. 

>Since {tera'} is a singular planet and {janHommey} are plural gadgets,
>the {lu-} prefix is required.  {tu'lu'} with a plural object should 
>properly have the {lu-} prefix too. {tera' lubavbogh janHommey law' lutu'lu'}.


    I thought about it, but as {tera'} were used as locative,
I thought that I didn't need to use {lu-}.  The other situations
I really forgot.  About numbers .. well .. I have to practise 
more. 


>>    vumchu' vaghvatlh reH. 
>
>Is {reH} here a typo for {neH}?  If so, this sentence is saying
>"Only 500 work completely."  I don't see that anywhere in your 
>translation, however.

    jIghItlhHa'. {neH} mu' lugh


>>loSnetlh wa'vatlh SIbDoH chu'Ha'lu'.

>I think you merged a couple of sentences in the translation.  Do you 
>mean that only 500 satellites are still working and 4100 have quit or 
>have been turned off?

    I would like to say: "500 from the 4.600 are operational".
So, 4.100 are desactivated and become space garbage.


>>ghop 'aD  wa'vatlh wa'bIp janHommey.   
>
>"One hundred, one hundred thousand gizmos have a length of a hand."
>That's an interesting use of {ghop} as a unit of size, but I can't 

    The article's unit of measure was "a tennis ball" .. 


>We're not really sure how to deal with numbers that get bigger than 
>the known suffixes can indicate.  Some people do as you did, and just 
>say "thirty five million".  Some people concatenate suffixes, making 
>{wejmaH'uy' vagh'uy'} "three ten-million five million".

    It sounds very very strange for us (brasilian people) because
we don't use this kind of contraction. When I listen the CK for
the first time in the HOURS section, I was intriguished when MO
said wa'maH Hutvatlhrep (19:00) or nineteen hundred hours. Here,
we don't have the particula hundred used in this sense. We just
say nineteen ours. Nineteen hundred does not exist in my language
due the cacophony that it produce.


>>    yuQmaj ghor pum veQvam HochHom 'ej chaq Qaw' lulInglaH.
>{Qaw'} "destroy" is a verb.  It's labeled as a noun in TKD, but that's
>been determined to be a typographical error.  TKW page 211:

    Humm .. I'll fix it in my dictionary. There are 2 erros
so .. E-K and K-E.


>>'omwI'mo'(*) chungHa'taH janHommey vaj yuQDaq yuvHa'qa' tlham.
>{'omwI'} "thing which resists".  I think you're trying for the word 
>"resistance" or "friction".  While one might be able to contrive a 
>translation using {-ghach} instead of {-wI'}, I'd suggest you just 
>name the thing causing the deceleration.  What are the satellites 
>being slowed down by?  It's {muD} "atmosphere".

    There are few air molecules which cause friction and cause
the deceleration of the satellites. I didn't have a name for
molecule  :-((


>>jenqu'chugh janHom vaj pummeH DIS law' loS. 
>
>"If a minor device is really high then it awaits many years to fall."
>
>This might be okay, if "awaits many years" is what you want to say. 
>If what you mean is "waits for many years" then you'll probably have 
>to rephrase it to talk about many years occurring.


    They have to spend many years in order to fall.

> {...pumpa' qaS DIS law'} "...many years occur before it falls."


    this one is better!


>>muDDaq 'elDI' janHommey HochHom Qaw'chu'lu' 
>{muDDaq 'el} is redundant.  In English, one says "it enters the 
>atmosphere".  The object of {'el} is the thing entered.  TKW page 181:
>  HIq DaSammeH tach yI'el.  "To find ale, go into a bar."

    In "Sins of father", when Worf knock the door, Kurn says:
{'el}. No prefix?? Clipped Klingon?


>>'ej bIQ'a'meyDaq ratlhbogh janHommey QeyHa'lu'.
>
>"And one is loose the minor devices which remain in the oceans."
>
>"Loose" is the opposite of "tight".  The word you're looking for in
>English is spelled "lose", and its Klingon counterpart is {chIl}. 
>Again, the plural devices demand the {lu-} prefix.
>The locative is somewhat ambiguous; are you referring to the devices 
>that stay in the ocean, or are you saying that's where the devices 
>that remain get lost?  I know what you mean, but it could be a little 
>clearer.

    Let me redo it:

'ej bIQ'a'meyDaq pum ratlhbogh janHommey'e' vaj luchIllu'.
(The remained artefacts will fall in the ocean, thus they will be lost)
I'm not sure if the Topic 'e' is necessary here.


>>    Qaw'mey lIng pumbogh wa'bIp javnetlh janHommeyvo' paghDIch'e'.
>
>"The zeroth from one hundred sixty thousand minor devices which fall 
>produce destroys."

>I'm also not sure that an ordinal number (one with {-DIch}) may be 
>used as a noun by itself; if that's what you're trying to do, then 
>you have broken the rule about never putting type 5 suffixes on the 
>first noun of a noun-noun construction. This entire sentence should be
>scrapped and the idea should be used to build a new one.

    So, although my sentence has been understandable, I must use
the topic 'e' in the first noun which follow the -bogh? I 
attached it in the paghDIch'e', but it not works, right?


>  {pumpu' wa'netlh javSaD janHommey.  QIH lIngpu' pagh.}
>  "Sixteen thousand minor devices have fallen.  None have produced damage."

    Ok!


>>vumbogh Duj'e' neH qIplu'.
>
>"One hits only the *ship* which toils."
>
>You used {Qap} earlier, which is much more appropriate than {vum} for 
>the idea of "operational".  I don't see that the topic suffix {-'e'} 
>helps here; in fact, it seems to confuse me into thinking "Only the
>*ship*?  As opposed to what?"  {neH} does a good job of indicating 
>that you are considering the ships which function, and none others.
>Guess what?  Your English translation confirms what I suspected from 
>context -- the ships are plural, so they require the {lu-} prefix. :-)

    Yes .. I had to rewrite the sentence. I didn't pay attention.
I would like to write: "Only the ships can be hit". But .. 2 
Tipe 5 suffixes  :-(


>Not bad, Edy.  You made two consistent errors, both of which are 
>easily corrected.  You need to remember when to use the "they/it" 
>prefix {lu-}, and you need to work on how to say large numbers.

    toH .. jIDub'egh 'e' vInIDtaH  :-))


>Now that the grammatical analysis of your note is complete, I'd like 
>to point out that Star Trek V used the phrase {ngeHbej DI}, literally 
>"cosmos' litter", to mean "space garbage".

    I have to record the klingon dialogues from the movies and
hear them many times. 


>I suppose I should give you some sentences to work on. :-)  Try these:

>Your friend ate my lunch.
(meghwIj Sop juplI')

>The workers breathed smoke.
tlhIch lutlhuH vumwI'pu'

>We lost our money.
Huchmaj wIchIl


>Five targs entered their house.
juHchaj lu'el vagh targh

>The waiters pour the liquor.
HIq lujab jabwI'pu'


>The liquor wets the glasses.
HIvje'mey yIQmoH HIq


>The clock has a face and hands.
qab ghopDu' je ghaj tlhaq


>The troops defeated the enemy.
jagh lujey Qas

>A Vulcan saw my sisters.
be'nI'pu'wI' legh vulqangan

>My sisters saw a Vulcan.
vulqangan lulegh be'nI'pu'wI'

>The soldiers lost the battle.
may' luchIl negh


>Be careful -- I set a couple of traps for you. :-)
    vonwI'meyvo' vInargh 'e' vInID


>Now reread carefully the section in TKD which describes numbers and 
>the number-forming suffixes, and practice translating numbers like 
>four thousand seven hundred twenty (4,720), and two hundred eighteen
>thousand six hundred five (218,605).

    I'll do it!

>-- ghunchu'wI' (Edy's mentor)

    jIghojneS

Edy

Back to archive top level