tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 04 17:00:36 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Request for comments
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Request for comments
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 10:00:14 +1000
- Bcc:
ja'pu' juDmoS:
>bIghHa'vam wIche' tlhInganpu'.
>(We Klingons run this prison.)
Hm. I don't know whether this can strictly be done; although there's no
canon against it, there's none for it either, AFAIK. I would have done it as
two sentences: {tlhIngan maH 'ej bIghHa'vam wIche'}.
>QumwI' bolo' 'e' boSuqQo'.
>(You won't get a phone call.)
I wouldn't use {Suq} with {'e'} in this way. {Suq} means "get, acquire", and
to me it gives the sense of actually laying hands on something. I suspect
you may have tried to translate the English "You won't get to use the
phone", in which "get" is more idiomatic.
I like {QumwI'} for "phone" - remember though, we already have {ghogh
HablI'} "telephone" (literally, "voice transceiver"). Additionally, the
normal negative is {-be'}; {-Qo'} is only used for refusals, like {vIta'Qo'}
"I won't do it!". {boSuqQo'} literally means "you refuse to get it".
I would say {ghogh HablI' bolo'laHbe'} "you won't be able to use the phone"
or {ghogh HablI' bolo' 'e' wIchaw'Qo'} "we refuse to let you use the phone".
>chutpIn boSuqQo'.
>(You won't get a lawyer.)
{chutpIn}... I like it. But in the past, we've generally shied away from
creating new compound nouns, so it's probably best just to leave it as the
noun-noun construction {chut pIn}. Again, watch out for {-Qo'}: {chut pIn
boSuqbe'} "you won't get a lawyer", not {chut pIn boSuqQo'} "you refuse to
get a lawyer".
>bopabchugh vaj SutaHlaH.
>(If you follow the rules, you can survive.)
pup. majQa'!
>narghlaH pagh. cha'logh nargh 'e' lunIDlaH pagh.
>(No one can escape. No one can try twice.)
Not bad! A couple of small things - {pagh} is probably singular (!) rather
than plural, and so wouldn't use the prefix {lu-}. Also, the translation
"no-one can try to escape twice" obscures the fact that in {cha'logh nargh
'e' lunIDlaH pagh}, the subject is actually escaping twice, not trying
twice. I'd just shift {cha'logh} in front of the {'e'}: {nargh cha'logh 'e'
nIDlaH pagh}.
All in all, quite good. Keep 'em coming!
Savan,
QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian
latlh nuv tlhoy' yItI'Qo' tlhoy'lIj'e' DalontaHvIS
(Do not repair another man's fence and abandon your own)
- Masai Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Over 80,000 jobs across all industries at Australia's #1 job site.
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail