tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 17 08:43:10 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tay naH

Scott Willis ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

The only problem I can find with all of these is that you are using the
imperative in English, but your Klingon is declarative.

Ex:
> wa' baQ peb'ot tlhab DaSuq.
> Acquire one fresh free peb'ot.

Fixing the word order:
{wa' tlhabbogh peb'ot baQ DaSuq.}
You get "You acquire one just-picked peb'ot which is free (wild)", a
statement.
Unless this is convered by an unusual rule, I don't think could be taken as
an instruction.

Note:
It could be. In STVI, after Kronos One is fired upon, I hear this:
{tlham chIllu'}
"Gravity has been lost" subtitled "We've lost gravity"
then:
{qeng DaSam}
"You find Kang" subtitled "Find Kang!"

I don't know if this was an error that was admitted, or if it was made a
rule.

It probably doesn't make a difference if you choose
{baQbogh peb'ot tlhab}
or
{tlhabbogh peb'ot baQ}
I suggest the latter only to avoid confusion. ({baQbogh peb'ot} could mean
"{peb'ot} which tosses a {betleH} from hand-to-hand", or "just-picked
{peb'ot}", depending on the sense of humor of the participants.) }}: )

> yub Dape' Dateq.
> Cut the husk, remove it.[3]

Rephrased as {yub yIpe'. yIteq.}, I think this works, ala:

{'uSDaj chop! chev!} PK
"Bite his/her/its leg off!"
lit
"Bite his leg! Separate it!"

or

{targhlIj yIngagh! yIruch!} PK
"Go mate with your {targh}!"
lit.
"Mate with your {targh}! Proceed!"

> raS'a'Daq peb'ot Dalan.
> Place the peb'ot on the alter.

I get the image of a very large table, not necessarily a holy space.

> <naHQun pIQutlh.
> "We support you, naHQun

I think {Qutlh} means to physically hold something up, like a pipe strut.
(This word came from the BoP poster, and mine hasn't arrived yet. So I may
be, not surprisingly, wrong on this one.)

I suggest:
{naHQun, ngaq pInob.}
"naHQun, we give you (military) support."

> toy'wI'lI'
> We are your servants

{toy'wI'lI' maH}
"We are your servants"

> qulDaq peb'ot DameQ
> Burn the peb'ot in a fire.

"I'd like to buy a {-moH}, Alex."
I know of only two examples of {meQ} in canon:
{HaDI'baHmey meQ Sop 'e' tIv tera'nganpu'} CK
"Terrans enjoy eating burnt animals"
and
{meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH} TKW, p. 111
"Only a fool fights in a burning house"

(If there are more, please post them)
Neither of these examples work the way {meQ} would have to work in your
sentence.
I suggest:
{qulDaq peb'ot yImeQmoH}
"Cause the {peb'ot} to burn in the fire"
or
"Cause the {peb'ot} to be burnt in the fire"

> vIychorgh botlhutlh
> Drink the juice.

Here, you switched from a second-person singular subject to second-person
plural subject, declarative.

{vIychorgh yIItlhutlh}
"Drink the juice."

> <QunlI' chobel.>
> <You please your god.>

Add a {-moH}, and you're in business.
There could be confusion. {QunlI' chobelmoH} could be seen as a prefix trick
application.
Also, {naHQun}, presumably, would have more than one follower, right? (He
might not, so I'm asking.)
If he has more than one follower, it should be:
{Qunra' tubelmoH}
"Y'all have pleased y'all's god", with the idea of "me" worked in there
somewhere.

Other than those things mentioned above, everything else looks good to me.
{vuDwIj neH 'oH}

--ngabwI'
HovpoH juHDaq:
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ngabwi/
HovpoH 700551.1

Back to archive top level