tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 19 21:17:21 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

--- McArdle <[email protected]> wrote:

> Esteemed grammarian (and others should feel free to
> pitch in as well, as far as I'm concerned):
>    
>   I'm trying to translate "What we have here is a
> failure to communicate" into Klingon.  I realize
> that there are many ways to do this, ranging from
> free and pithy (and probably more authentically
> Klingon), to literal and wordy.  For example, 
>    
>      maQumlaHbe' 'e' vItu'
>    
>   (if grammatical) really seems to capture the core
> of the meaning.  (Should I be using {-chuq} to
> indicate that I'm referring to communication with
> each other, or is this unnecessary and/or wrong?)  
> 

No problem with the grammar.

I do think you should use {-chuq}: {maQumchuqlaHbe'}.
I don't have a good feeling about using {vItu'} to
mean "it appears to me". I always think of {tu'} as
referring to an actual act of finding or discovering.
Maybe {vInoH} "I judge" would work.
   
>   The kind of translation I'm really looking for is
> something that, while (at least) not incorrect, is
> reminiscent enough of the English version so that a
> Klingon familiar with 20th-century Terran motion
> pictures would recognize its source.  Here's my best
> shot:
>    
>      QumHa'ghach naQ 'oH ghu''e' naDev wItu'taHbogh
>    

I don't understand why {naQ} is there. Same comment
about the metaphorical use of {tu'}.

>   I guess my basic questions are
>   (1) what have I gotten wrong here?

Again, nothing wrong with the grammar.

>   (2) are there better ways to express this?
>

{QumHa'ghach ghu'na' 'oH naDev qaStaHbogh ghu''e'}
"A definite situation of miscommunication is the
situation occuring here."

(Not saying it's better, but it does avoid some
of my concerns about word choice.)
    
>   I've been going through the discussion group
> archives and I notice that early on (late '93/early
> '94, which is as far as I've gotten so far) there
> was a lot of talk about whether -ghaj and -ghach
> should be avoided as particularly
> tera'ngan-sounding.  How has this debate evolved? 

Maybe Voragh has some canon for us?

> Would {wIghajbogh} have been acceptable instead of
> {wItu'taHbogh}?  How about {Doch} for {ghu'}?
>   Another thing:  it seems wrong to me to use {-taH}
> with {ghaj}, even though I have no trouble using it
> with {tu'}.  Is there any real basis for this in
> tlhIngan Hol, or is this just an English-speaker's
> prejudice?
>

I don't have any general prejudice against {ghajtaH}.
I wouldn't use {ghaj} for "having a situation",
though.
I think you can only have things, not events.

By the same token, I wouldn't use {Doch}, which I
think of as a concrete thing. {wanI'} might apply,
though.    
    
>   McA
>  		

-- ter'eS BG

Back to archive top level