tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 12 13:14:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - DaH mughqa' tuv'el 'e' nIDlaw'
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - DaH mughqa' tuv'el 'e' nIDlaw'
- Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 13:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
---Burt Clawson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> KLBC - DaH mughqa' tuv'el 'e' nIDlaw'
>
> naDev jabbI'IDmey tu'lu' jay'! vIlaD bIH Hoch vIneH 'ach poH yap
> vIHutlh
> jIH. ghay'cha'! vInuDnIS bIH.
Yikes. Some scattered subjects and objects there. Get a tattoo: OVS!
I'm sure pagh chastised you for it in my absence.
>chay' bIH bobuSqangchu'bogh bowIvlaH? HIja'.
Same way I read English language lists: I read the subject lines.
jIHvaD Dajlaw'chugh jabbI'ID vIlaD. Dallaw'chugh vInop. nap.
> DaH vIQIj:
>
> muja' Qov:
> > > 'ej DaH vay'vaD pImqu':
> > This says "and now, for the benefit of someone/something,
> > it/he/she/they is/are quite different."
>
> I was trying to say, "And now for something completely different..."
Yes, but you translated the words, not the meaning, and produced
gibberish.
> DaH vImugh:
> > ja' Qov:
> > pa' potlhwI' tu'lu'.
> > There are important things over there.
If you knew me better you would know I'm pedantic enough that had I
meant potlhwI' to be plural, I would have used {lutu'lu'}. :) I meant
"There is the important thing," or "... an important thing." I was
referring to the final point of the paragraph I was responding to. I
initially wrote {naDev potlhwI' tu'lu'}, but changed it, because it
could look like I was saying what *I* was writing was the important
thing, in contrast to the previous text.
> > QoQ wIDelmeH Deghmey DIwIv 'ach wanI'meyna'
> > DIDel.
> We choose symbols to describe
> music, but we describe definite events.
Understand that the "definite" there is a poor English approximation
of the way {-na'} expresses complete certainty that music actually
happens, and is not a collective hallucination. If I was talking about
the results of aromatherapy I might say {wanI'meyHey}, as I'm not
certain that scents of herbs caused physical changes, but I know that
music is definite physical events, independent of notation and
terminology.
> > Qo'noSDaq tera'Daq loghDaq je QoQ luDellaH yu'eghmey.
Waves can describe music on
> Kronos, on Earth, and in outer space.
Yeah. Kind of a silly thing to say in retrospect. loghDaq may'ron
Dachu'taHvIS DuQoylaH pagh. :)
> > napHa'ghach vIQoylaHbe' jIH 'ach QeD'e' vIvuv.
> I can't hear the complexity, but
> I respect the science.
A complete translation would indicate that "_I_ can't hear it," and
might add something like "the actual science" to convey the emphasis
of {jIH} and {-'e'}. A translation that uses only the TKD meaning of
each suffix and omits altogether meaning that does not translate
directly is rather ... tlhorghHa' : flavourless. A really good
translation shows you understand the feeling, not just the
syllable-by-syllable meaning.
> > mI'QeD rur QoQ.
> Music resembles number theory.
mI'QeD is a coined word analogous to Okrand-approved HolQeD. I might
have written mI' QeD instead. Literally "number science," or "the
science of numbers" I intended it to apply to the whole field of
mathematics, and don't see a reason to interpret it more narrowly.
> > Hol tIgh je juSchu'.
> It clearly overtakes language and custom.
"Clearly" isn't a good default translation for {-chu'}. In the
example {jIyajchu'} it makes perfect sense, because understanding to
the max is understanding clearly. {vIleghchu'} would be 'see clearly'
or 'see perfectly,' but {vImISmoHchu'} has to be translated more like
"I totally confused him." Overtaking to the max isn't 'overtaking
clearly.' It's overtaking completely, utterly, all the way. This
isn't a statement about how clear it is that one thing overtakes
another. If I wanted to make that statement I would use -ba' or -bej.
So what am I saying here? I'm saying that music completely passes
those things by, leaves them behind. I had an English word in mind as
I wrote that: "transcends." I hope that I expressed that idea.
> > QoQ DelmeH potlhbe' tlhIngan yajmeH mIw.
> A procedure for understanding Klingon
> is not important for describing music.
Remember: tlhIngan does not equal tlhIngan Hol. I'd translate
{tlhIngan yajmeH mIw} "the Klingon way of understanding." There is
still some ambiguity over whether {tlhIngan yajmeH mIw} is a procedure
for understanding Klingons or a procedure Klingons use for
understanding, so you could have come up with "a precedure for
understanding a Klingon," but we have the same ambiguity in English
where "child killers" maybe murderers of children or children who kill.
> > yu'eghmey
> > DIDellaH neH.
>Just so we can describe waves.
As ghunchu'wI' pointed out, There's no "just so" about it. "We just
describe the waves." (that's all). {neH} after a verb trivializes the
action.
> QoQ yajbe'chu' Hoqra', 'ach yu'eghmey qonlaH 'ej
> > muchlaH.
> A Tricorder clearly can't understand music, but it can record waves
and
> can perform music.
Again, "clearly" is the wrong translation here. Do not translate the
suffix {-chu'} as "clearly" when "clearly" means "obviously." Also I
didn't say {-laH} so no "can't."
yajbe'ba' - "clearly doesn't understand"
yajlaHbe'ba' - "clearly can't understand"
yajchu'be' - "doesn't understand clearly"
And notice: you can't say, "clearly doesn't understand clearly"
"apparently doesn't understand clearly" or "undoubtedly doesn't
understand clearly" using these suffixes. The presence of {-chu'}
forbids {-law'}, {-ba'} and {-bej}.
I might say "A tricorder has absolutely no understanding of music, but
it can record the waves and present them." Just as someone
translating English into Klingon has to convert some nouns to verbs
(and NOT say *{yajlaw'ghach ghajbe'chu' Hoqra'}") a translator of
Klingon to English may have to convert some Klingon verbs to English
nouns.
> > QoQvetlh luDellaH je mu'mey luyajbe'taHvIS.
> They can also describe that music while not
> understanding the words.
This is an awkward Klingon sentence to translate to English, but I
think you've missed the meaning. Parse it slowly.
You have a vague "they" antecedent in your translation. What did you
think I was referring to? The closest plural antecedent was the
waves, and that doesn't make sense. As you read the sentence I would
expect you to be expecting me to tell you what the plural subject was,
and indeed I did.
> QoQvetlh luDellaH je mu'mey
"words can describe that music too"
> luyajbe'taHvIS.
"without [the words] understanding it."
If I were speaking aloud you would understand better, because I would
say, "QoQvetlh luDellaH je mu'mey ..." wait for understanding to
register in my listeners' eyes (and give me a chance to think about
the next clause), then add "... luyajbe'taHvIS.
> > mu'meyvetlh'e'
> > nejlaw' QoQ luparHa'bogh jatlhwI'pu'ma'. vIyajlaw'.
> Our speakers who like music seem to seek those
>
> words.
I'd have translated "It is those words that our music-liking speakers
look for," as a way of twisting the topicalized words for special
attention. I probably should have said {nejlI'}, using an aspect
suffix because the search still continues and choosing {-lI'} over
{-taH} because it's a finite goal with an obvious stopping point.
> I apparently understand them.
"Apparently" here is uncomfortable. I'm saying "I understand them"
but adding a splash of uncertainty.
> maSwov ja' Qov:
>
> > taghwI' Dapqoq vItIv.
> [I enjoy my lung's so-called nonsense.]
This is a perfectly acceptable translation of what is written,
assuming that you figure the writer is referring a language-using
lizard. It must have struck you as a tad out of context, though, no? :)
> [I enjoy one who initiates so-called nonsense.]
That would be, {Dapqoq taghwI' vItIv}. The possessor goes first.
> > taghwI' Dapqoq vItIv.
"I enjoy beginners' 'nonsense.'"
"I enjoy the beginner's 'nonsense.'"
The beginner I first said this to referred to what s/he had written as
{Dap}, so my use of the suffix {-qoq} indicated skepticism bordering
on disagreement over whether it was really nonsense.
> qaStaHvIS wa'maH cha' pemmey wa'maH cha' rammey je, > tlhIngan Hol
vIHaD.
> jIDubchoH'a'?
laHlIj DaDubbejta'.
ghunchu'wI' pointed out that sending translations directly to the
poster might be better. I'm quite enjoying your translating my
Klingon. It shows me possible ambiguities I didn't consider, and ways
I could write more clearly. I'll definitely respond to private e-mail
translating or questioning what I write. However, do learn to simply
read the Klingon as Klingon, and not always translate. Hee, this
reads like a stilted translation.
Qov
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com