tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 30 08:03:04 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: wej qIDmey
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: wej qIDmey
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 98 08:08:50 EST
ja' Edy:
>Greetings!
>
>I hope that you have had a good meeting!!
Dunbej qep'a'!
>Above, 3 small jokes that I wrote.
You later corrected this to "below", of course.
These are obviously translations. Please, Edy, don't practice this
way. You're at the stage where you'll get so much more out of it if
you'll just start telling us about the events of your day. Describe
your bedroom or a nearby park. Make up a story about talking fish or
flying pajamas. You need practice in *composing* sentences, not just
translating them.
I've reformatted this to put one sentence on each line so it's easier
for me to comment on the problems. Beginners, try to write with each
sentence separated this way; it helps to make the Grammarians' job a
*little* less of a chore.
>ngemDaq ja'chuq wej yoqpu'.
>Three humanoids were discussing in a forest.
The wording is a little odd in the English; I'd probably have chosen
"conferring" to avoid the possible transitive meaning implied by the
word "discussing". The Klingon sentence is fine, though I wonder if
{jaw} "chat" would be more appropriate than {ja'chuq} "confer".
>Human romuluSngan tlhIngan je'.
>A human, a romulan and a klingon.
This is a sentence fragment in both languages, the kind that would get
a nasty remark from your teacher in school. Put the word {chaH} after
it to make it a complete sentence: "They were a human, a romulan..."
And watch your spelling: the conjunction is {je}. {je'} means feed
or purchase.
>betleH raQmeH SuvwI' po' law' Hoch po' puS 'Iv 'e' lu'tu'nIS.
>They needed to know who were the best warrior to handle a betleH.
This doesn't work at all. You're apparently trying to use a
comparitive {law'/puS} construction as the object of a "who is"
question with {'Iv} acting verbally, and then trying to use the
{'Iv} itself as a relative pronoun in a sentence-as-object
construction. To put it bluntly, it's nonsense.
The big problem is that we don't know how to use {law'/puS} in a
relative clause. There's no rule that tells us how to say "the
warrior who is more skilled than everyone else" and no examples of
anything close enough for us to figure out if it's even possible.
This line must be thrown away and a new one must be crafted in its
place, using the grammatical tools we *do* have. Consider something
using {nIv} "be superior", or just ask the question using {'Iv} in
place of the first noun.
And I personally avoid the verb {raQ} for this meaning; {ruQ} is an
older and more established term without the confusion of the totally
different meaning of the noun {raQ}. If you're going for clarity,
every little bit helps.
>pay' HumanDaq puv ghew.
>Suddenly a bug flies toward the human.
maj.
>betleHDaj tlhap 'ej ghew qIp 'ej cha' 'ay' pe'.
>He takes his betleH and hit the bug and cut it in 2 pieces.
{tlhap} might not be the best word here. How about {ruQ} or {yan}?
{cha' 'ay' pe'} "cut two sections" is close to what you meant, but I
think you need to be a little clearer here. Maybe {ghew nIH poS je
chevchu'} "completely separate the bug's left and right sides"?
>jach Human: -SuvwI' po' law' Hoch po' puS jIH.
>The human yells: -I am the best warrior.
The human's statement doesn't work; a {law'/puS} sentence is a
*sentence*, not a noun that you can use as the object of {jIH}.
Try something like {jIH po' law' Hoch SuvwI'pu' po' puS} "I am
more skilled than all warriors." Or rephrase it completely.
>ja'chuqtaH wej yoqpu'.
>The three humanoids keep discussing.
maj.
>pay' romuluSDaq puv ghew latlh.
>Suddenly another bug flies toward the romulan.
Skybox card S31, {Hegh bey} "Death Howl", reveals that {latlh} goes
before a noun in a phrase like this. {latlh ghew} "another bug".
Or you can be more specific and say {ghew cha'DIch} "a second bug".
>betleHDaj tlhap 'ej ghew qIp. ghew wa' tel pe'.
>The romulan takes his betleH, hit the bug and cut one of her wings off.
"Cut the bug's one wing" reads strangely. I don't think {ghew} needs
to be repeated here, and I think the sentence would seem a lot less
odd without it.
You didn't get the "cut it off" meaning expressed at all. Again, the
word {chev} might be useful.
>jach romuluS: -SuvwI'na' po' law' Hoch po' puS jIH.
>He yells: -I=EDm definte the best warrior.
The planet Romulus is screaming? :-) He's a {romuluS_ngan_}. And
he's got the same problem with his wording as the human did -- fix it
the same way.
>ja'chuqtaH wej yoqpu'.
>The three humanoids keep discussing.
maj.
>tlhIngan puv ghew latlh.
>Another bug flies toward the klingon.
Make this either {latlh ghew} or {ghew wejDIch}.
>betleHDaj tlhap 'ej ghew qIp 'ach qaS pagh.
>He takes his betleH, hit the bug and nothing happens.
Except for {tlhap} being less than ideal here, the Klingon sentence is
great. {'ach} is perfect; the "and" in the English translation is
okay but weak.
>jatlh cha' yoqpu': - puvtaH ghew.
>The two humanoids say: - The bug keeps flying.
You might want to say the two *other* humanoids, but this is fine.
>-HIja', ja' tlhIngan 'ach not puqpu'Daj legh ghew.
>- Yes, said the klingon, but she will never see her children.
Putting the {ja' tlhIngan} inside the quote isn't something we've seen
done, and it marks this as a definite translation into Klingon from an
existing text. Either keep all of the quoted text together, or put
the two pieces in separate sentences.
{HIja'} is normally used to answer a yes-or-no question, and not
just to indicate agreement. Consider {jIQochbe'} or {Sulugh} instead.
====
Not bad at all. You're making clever mistakes instead of stupid ones,
but I think that's because you're still trying to translate sentences
instead of create them.
It's hard to appreciate a good joke when concentrating on the grammar,
but I like this one. :-) I'll address the other two jokes in separate
replies.
-- ghunchu'wI'