tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 06 11:21:13 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: A somewhat advanced translation...

I've removed the KLBC from this because, as the author admitted, 
it is not really a beginner's problem. This is somewhat advanced 
and likely deserves to be discussed in the broader arena of 
not-marked-as-KLBC stuff.

charghwI'

On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:06:05 -0500 (EST) [email protected] 
wrote:

> 
> >Voragh has already commented on <yo'>, and the rest of it is quite good. I
> >particularly like <Hegh 'oHbe'bogh Hegh>. You might consider an alternative
> >for the last bit, though: <..., 'ej Haghlu'>. Just something to think about.
> >pagh
> 
> <Hegh 'oHbe'bogh Hegh> vIparHa'qu' je.  That is a really cool phrase.
> 
> *pagh, a question came up when I was trying to read this sentence.
> When you say "A is B", it's <B 'oH A'e'>, qar'a'?  The <-'e'> suffix
> as I recall is necessary.  Thus, "A is not B" would be <B 'oHbe' A'e'>,
> and "A which is not B" would be <B 'oHbe'bogh A'e'>.  Perhaps "death
> which is not death" is too abstract an example.  Let me use another.
> 
> Suppose I wanted to say "Kahless is a warrior".  <SuvwI' ghaH qeylIS'e'>,
> qar'a'?  Then "Kahless, who is a warrior" is <SuvwI' ghaHbogh qeylIS'e'>.
> This puts the <-'e'> on <qeylIS>.  But what if I wanted to use this in
> a phrase where the topic of the <-bogh> clause (sorry I'm not a linguist,
> I hope you understand what I mean) is <SuvwI'>?  Is this possible?  In
> English, something like "I see the warrior, whom Kahless is".  (I
> realize that I can recast this to "I see Kahless who is the warrior",
> the example is artificial but I couldn't think of a better one.)  Would
> that be <SuvwI''e' ghaHbogh qeylIS>?  <SuvwI''e' ghaHbogh qeylIS'e'>?
> DaH jIHvaD yIQIj!

Realize that Okrand made the "add {-'e'} to the subject of all 
'to be' sentences" rule years before Krankor came up with the 
idea of using {-'e'} to mark the head noun of a relative clause. 
These two uses of {-'e'} were made without considering each 
other. They clash.

My own answer to this is that the relative clauses in Klingon 
are useful, but limited and when you try to stretch them too 
far, they break. Don't use a broken relative clause. Instead, 
make it a separate sentence:

"I see the warrior whom Kahliss is."

SuvwI' vIlegh. SuvwI'vam ghaH qeylIS'e'.

Depending on the sentence, you may also be able to change the 
verb from "to be". Realize that English speakers who also speak 
Klingon typically overuse "to be" because they are so familiar 
with it in English. The next example will be quite 
controversial, depending on how people feel about Okrand's use 
of the verb {pong}. Certainly, the previous two sentence example 
would be easier for more people to understand.

SuvwI'vaD qeylIS ponglu'bogh vIlegh.
 
> --
> De'vID
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------
> Beam to http://www.StarTrek.com
> Now featuring the Star Trek Store and
> the official site for Star Trek: Insurrection.
> ------------------------------

charghwI'

Back to archive top level