tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 15 14:37:27 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Hatlh poS
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Hatlh poS
- Date: Fri, 15 May 98 15:58:41 EST
ja' Edy:
> ghunchu'wI'vaD
>
> I found a book in my messy small library and tried to translate a
>small track. As I know you don't like this kind of work, you don't need to
>look carefully the text. Just let me know if I the idea is ok.
jIlaDchu'be', bIqonchu' chay' 'e' vIboQlaH?
If I don't read carefully, how can I help you write carefully? :-)
I'll try my best to ignore the poetic implications and deal only with
the grammar and vocabulary I see.
> Hatlh poS
I'm not at all certain that {poS} can be used this way. It's likely
that it refers only to things that can be "open" or "closed", and the
word here is being used to mean "wide open spaces" or "unsurrounded".
I think {Hatlh} alone is sufficient to express the idea.
>pongwIj maqlu' 'e' jIQoy
{...vIQoy} -- {'e'} is third-person singular.
If {maq} works like {jatlh}, and its object is the thing proclaimed,
then the rest of this sentence is okay. I'm pretty sure there is a
canon example of its use, but I don't have it handy.
>SorDaq jISo'mo' chonvo' jInargh.
{qoD} "interior" would be perfect here, to more clearly describe
hiding *inside* the hollow tree: {Sor qoDDaq}. I don't know if
"escape from the hunt" works with a literal translation. I think
"escape from the huntERS" would probably work better.
>Dat muqopmeH DurghtaHqu'bogh 'avwI'pu''e' tu'lu'.
I assume this is a typo for {Dugh} "vigilant". The sentence is
grammatically fine except for one nit-picky detail: the guards are
plural, so it should be {lutu'lu'}.
I always point out that when {tu'lu'} appears as the main verb of a
sentence with other verbs used adjectivally or in relative clauses,
the idea can usually be stated more directly by using the other verb
as the main one. For example: {Dat muqopmeH DurghtaHqu' 'avwI'pu'}.
>jInarghtaHvIS jIchoq'egh.
There's nothing wrong with the grammar, but I interpret the idea of
the English poem differently: {jInarghlaHtaHvIS jIchoq'egh}
>loD quvHa'moHmo' 'e' mIpbe'qu'bogh loD jIrurchoH.
The word {'e'} has no business in this sentence that I can see, and
the last word should be {vIrurchoH}. Remove {'e'} and fix the prefix
and it's grammatically okay, but I'm not sure if it says what you want
it to. "I start to resemble a man who is really not rich because he
dishonored a man." I'm not going to try to change this to match how I
interpret the English; it would change so much as to be useless as a
teaching example. But I *will* ask if you really mean {loD}. {nuv}
or {ghot} might be just as good, and will avoid offending the women
here unintentionally. :-)
>Ha'DI'baH jIrur.
Typo: {Ha'DIbaH}. And it has to be {vIrur}.
>qabwIj jImoHmoH 'ej Sut 'up/roghmoHlu'pu'
>vItuQchoH 'ej nIbwIj jIghIHmoHDI' SuSmey chal wIH je vIqaD.
Again -- twice -- you used the prefix {jI-} where you needed {vI-}.
{-moH} doesn't let you ignore the fact that the verb now *does* have
an object. If you want to go into territory that's not quite charted,
you *might* be able to say {qabwIjvaD jImoHmoH}, but it's so much
more common to hear the phrasing {qabwIj vImoHmoH}.
I'm tempted to ignore the stuff after the {'up}. It would have to
have the suffix {-bogh} to fit in the sentence, and I'm not at all
sure what "clothing which has been caused to ferment" would mean.
After fixing the {jI-} errors and dropping the stuff after the slash,
it says "I uglify my face and I start wearing disgusting clothes and
as soon as I mess up my hair I challenge the winds and ruthless sky."
If that's what you wanted, fine.
My standard complaint: Poetry is not good stuff to practice with,
even if it's well-written poetry with perfect grammar and common
sentence structures. Poetry that isn't written in modern language
in the first place or plays with grammar for poetic effect is *bad*
stuff to practice with. And for those who are still reading, most
popular songs fit the category of poetry.
-- ghunchu'wI'