tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 07 20:59:59 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] voDleH Sut chu' (or, paghmo' tIn mIS)
I've found this a lot more fun to read than a lot of the translation
projects, I guess because it's a retelling of a story that I know,
and it doesn't feel like an attempt to slavishly reproduce the original.
At 17:02 07/02/2012, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
Many thanks for your feedback, both of you :)
>>DIS law' ret
> ben law'
Wasn't sure if that's allowed, but it makes sense, since ben appears
to act almost like a noun.
Allowed! Until what seems like incredibly recently it was the only
way to say it. ben, nem, Hu' and leS are the original time anchor
words. Everything else is a Johnny-come-lately.
Would like to rephrase that whole sentence (DIS law' ret che' Sut
chu' Qejqu'bogh voDleH'e'.), though, since it feels like it takes
too long to get to the subject of the sentence; the voDleH'e'.
Perhaps I should make two sentences out of it?
ben law' yIntaH voDleH'e' bopbogh lutvam. Sut Qejqu'bogh ghaH/voDleHvam/-.
You can be simpler than that. ben law' yIntaH voDleH. Sut Qejqu'mo'
voDleH Sutmey nIv SuqmeH Hoch HuchDaj lo'.
Many stories in English begin with "Once upon a time there lived a[n]
X." You know that the X mentioned in such an opening sentence is
what bopbogh lut.
>> puHDujDaj lIghchugh SutDaj chu' much neH neH.
> Or maybe SutDaj chu' muchmeH neH puHDujDaj lIgh.
Good point. I rather like the <neH neH>, but bangmeywIj vIHoHrup net
poQ. In the beginning I was still sticking very close to the English
version; feel it got easier to deviate once I was more invested in
the story (I'd never read it in full, before).
Fairy tales and legends it's better to write flowing understandable
Klingon words than slavishly reproduce the English. It's not a
physics textbook or an instruction manual.
>>reH vengDajDaq QaQ yIn. Hoch jaj veng lu'el novpu'. wa' jaj
>>'elwI'pu'Daq leng cha' tojwI'pu'.
>I would have chosen {'elwI'pu' tlhej cha' tojwI'pu'}. Otherwise
>sounds to me like they were travelling around in the people entering.
The feeling I'd like to convey is that they travel among the
enterers; to give a feeling that they first go unnoticed in the
masses. However, if that's not the idea that gets across, then your
version is better.
For your wish, maybe {'elwI'pu' ghomDaq leng}
One more possibility is 'elwI'pu'Daq chaHtaH cha' tojwI'pu''e'.
("Two tricksters are at the enterers.")
Again it makes me wonder if they are on them? In them?
>> chaH bejDI' voDleH Duy Sotqu' paghHey leghlaHmo'. paghna'vaD vIt 'e' chIl.
> 'e' chIl? Do you mean luj or Haj, maybe?
HIvqa' Denmargh! I meant to write <'e' chID>.
Then I don't quite understand it. For the sake of nothing he admitted
telling the truth? He admitted telling the truth for verifiably nothing?
>>SutvaD lubuSmoH[1] Seylaw'bogh renwI'pu'qoq
>Do they really lubuSmoH? Maybe tungHa'moH.
>Why not: renwI'pu'qoq Seymo' pe'vIl Sutmey buS voDleH qeSwI'.
That works. However, the feeling I wish to convey is that they're
pushy, rather than that the qeSwI' is genuinely interested in the
thing they're excited about.
Of course, if I'm the only one who reads it that way, then there's
no reason to keep it :P
>>[1] ...or should it be ghaHvaD Sutvam lubuSmoH, as with qawmoH and ghojmoH?
> That's certainly more understandable.
I personally am a bit disappointed that this appears to be the
standard practice. I rather enjoyed the idea of <tlhIngan HolvaD
qaghojmoH> meaning something like "I direct your learning towards Klingon."
I think it's just tlhIngan Hol qaghojmoH. It's just when you need a
one who is made to verb and the thing they are made to verb, that the
one being made to verb moves off to the -vaD slot.
Now, it feels like the English gloss for stem+moH is more important
than the stem itself. qawmoH now means "cause something to be
remembered", and ghojmoH "cause something to be learned".
>> Qub ghaH, qoH jIH'a'? Qu'wIjvaD jIpo'be''a'?
> Consider 'um or tlhIb as well as po' here (and originally).
Ah, thanks; tlhIb I have thought of, but not 'um. Since this is a
recurring theme, it probably wouldn't hurt to use more variation in
describing it.
Or to come up with a really fine one and repeat it. Repetition is
good in stories like this.
>> tugh latlh Duy ngeH voDleH 'ej tlhoS nIb wanI'[4]. nuD 'ej bej 'ach
>> leghbe'. pagh leghchu'
> I know you're going for "s/he saw nothing at all" but it comes out to
> me more like, "he saw nothing perfectly. Consider {Sut leghbe'chu'}.
Actually, what I'm going for with the whole sequence (pagh leghchu'
'ach vay' leghHa' 'e' Har.) is "He saw nothing perfectly, but he
thought he was mis-seeing something.", the idea being that there's
nothing to see, but he thinks it is.
But {pagh leghchu'} seems to me to imply {'op legh}. Saying {pagh
legh} shows he saw nothing, but adding -chu' is qualifying the legh
not the pagh. Maybe you want paghna' legh, or maybe I'm the only one
who reads it this way.
Perhaps something like this would get the point across better: vay'
leghHa' 'e' Har ghaH 'ach paghna' leghchu' neH. {He thought he
missaw something, but he merely saw a true nothing clearly.}
chaq.
>>noychoH Sutqoq 'IH 'ej chenchu'pa' legh ghaH je neH voDleH.
> Something odd going on here after legh. I think you mean {legh je
> ghaH neH voDleH}.
As I understand it, je can follow a noun to mean "this thing, as
well", thereby making this "The emperor wished that he, too, see the
suit before it was finished."
See section 5.3. je follows the verb. I was doing the same thing
incorrectly earlier in my story. It works for neH but not je.
I read <legh je ghaH neH voDleH> as "He wished to also SEE the suit
(as opposed to just hearing about it)", whereas I want the emphasis
on "HE". However, perhaps this could be accomplished by appending an -'e'?
Putting the explicit ghaH in has already taken care of that.
>> bej Hoch ghot'e' qemta'bogh voDleH.
> But why -Daq bej. Do you mean {SIrghjan qoD bej} or {SIrghjan bej}?
The idea I want is "they looked in the direction of the SIrghjan
(which was also the direction in which they should be able to see the Sut)".
So how about SIrghjan lurgh bej.
>> QI' much'a' wa'Hu' ram naQ not Qong tojwI'pu'.
> I'm not accepting this as "one day before the military parade."
I was expecting some eyebrows to be raised about this.
Which part do you not accept? Using QI' much'a' to refer to a
military parade,
Oh no problem with that at all. I didn't even stop to think about it.
or using <X wa'Hu'> to mean "the day before X"?
Yeah, it's glossed as "days ago." I'd really like it to mean "days
before" defaulting to "days before now" so that I can use loSleS in
narrative to mean "four days later." I usually have to make such time
things be in dialogue so I can.
One can probably do something with nungbogh or a two-sentence
construction, but I figure since most time elements seem to function
roughly as nouns do, this was an efficient way of expressing what I wanted.
My difficulty understanding it may have been in the four noun and a
verb pileup before the adverb.
I really don't like QI' much'a', myself, though. I considered QI'
lop, but I didn't want to confuse it with QI'lop. QI' lopno' may
avoid that confusion, but I'm not sure a parade constitutes a lopno'.
Remember, I haven't seen your English original and haven't read the
story in maybe thirty years, but immediately understood military
parade with no thought.
>>meQchu' jav weQ vaj vumqu' chaH net Har.
>>SIrghjanvo' Sut lujotlh[7] 'e' lughet.
>Ahh, I've finally realized that it's a loom not a sewing machine. You
>might need the idea that {SIrgh qengwI' lunechtaHmoH 'ach chImlaw'}.
>If it matters.
Thanks for the tip! Should probably add a sentence or two earlier on
to describe in more detail what sort of SIrghjanmey they are. Also,
this highlights something that one can view as either problematic or
splendid: There's very little in the story to indicate in what era
it takes place. Sure, it was "many years ago", but that could be 50
years, 100 years or 1000 (...not to mention that you don't know when
this is being narrated; ENT, TOS, ENT... :P).
So, if one wishes to remain consistent (so that the reader doesn't
have to retrofit his/her interpretation of the story midway), there
are really two options:
1) Go into the story and add some stuff that makes it clear from the
beginning when the story is set
OR
2) Go into the story and make sure there is hardly ANY evidence of
what era the story is set in; leave it up to the reader to decide if
it's in the Iron Age, at around the Industrial Revolution, modern
times or even at some point in the future (told by a narrator from a
still more distant future).
I like option #2 also. The Sutjan can be more vague.
I'm personally rather fond of option #2.
I also rather like the fact that the story doesn't really reveal if
it takes place in Denmark, Japan or even on Qo'noS :)
bIlugh
>>Sutqoq lupe'meH cha''etlh pe'wI'meyna' tIn lo'. ghangwI'Daq narghDI'
>>jul tugh vem voDleH 'ej SIbI' renwI'pu'qoq jaH. lutlhej[8] veng chuQun nIv.
>Kinda late to be taking the cloth off the loom. They're going to cut
>and finish the garments in one morning?
I had a similar reaction. However, that's how the story goes. I
guess when all you have to work with is make-believe fabric, you can
set your own schedule :P
rpH
>>jang yuDbogh ta', jatlh, Hoch vIparHa'qu'.
>yuDbej'a'? neplI' 'ach yuD ... to me is a deeper character thing, not
>just one occasion.
I actually quite agree. I originally wrote <batlhHa' jang voDleH>,
but for sake of rhyme, not reason, I changed it.
paq'batlh includes several instances of phrases similar to <jatlhDI'
val> ("he/she spoke wisely"). I suppose I could write <jangDI' yuD
ta'>, but that would destroy the rhyme, anyway, so then I may as
well go with the original, which is more accurate.
I like jangDI' yuD better than batlhHa' jang. I think it should be
left more as an exercise to the reader whether this action is
batlhHa'. Can you work with neplI'bogh?
Also, this could perhaps tie into the recent discussion on -taH.
While I'll probably stick with <batlhHa' jang ta'>, I can't help but
to consider the difference between <jang yuDbogh ta'> and <jang
yuDtaHbogh ta'>. yuDtaHmeH yuDHa'bogh ta' DuH'a'? He's being
dishonest when he answers, even though he may not be dishonest as a person.
Doesn't work for me, but I'm not going to pretend to be an authority
on V7 canon.
>> jatlh tojwI' cha'DIch, qaH yItuQHa'choHneS. ghIq SIla'Daq SutlIj
>> chu' DatuQchoHmeH pIQaHlaH.
> You don't like {tuQmoH}?
I do not. I feel that <ghu vItuQmoH> should mean "I dress the baby",
not "I put on the baby". However, judging by examples like qawmoH
and tuQmoH (mentioned above), perhaps I need to accept tuQmoH as
being more than an error.
tuQmoH is glossed as "put on (clothes)" not "dress someone" or "put
(clothes) on."
>>pagh leghlaH pa' chuQun
>You mean "the room's nobility?" I think you can leave out pa'. We
>know the ones not in the room won't see anything.
I was actually being a bit naughty and going for "the there nobility".
I don't even get "the there nobility" in English.
>>tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq chuQun naD Qoy voDleH.
> I'm confused by the change from tIngvo' to 'evDaq and chanDaq. Is
> there some significance? If it's "from the SW, to the NW to the E" I
> don't get why the movement. If it's from the SW, and in the NW and in
> the E" then you need a je after that.
As De'vID explains, it's an idiomatic expression meaning "all over
the place". I feel it gives the impression that the Emperor is
standing in one place and hearing praise from all around him, while
Dat might make it sound like he walks around and receives praise in
different places (of course, that can be solved with a pa'
QamtaHvIS, but I still like the image the idiom creates in my mind).
I have to go back through my HolQeDmey, obviously.
>>ghIq 'el muchmey buSbogh qeSwI'Daj'e'. jatlh, qaH! HurDaq ghaHtaHneS
>>chup qengwI''pu''e'.
>chup qengwI'pu', hmm, I wonder who those will be, and how they differ
>from qeSwI'pu'
>>voDleH quvmoHmeH van toy'wI'pu'. ngupDaj lujenmoHmeH luwoH 'e'
>>lunID. luj 'ach Qap 'e' lughet.
>Ah of course, that kind of ngup.
QIvHa' veQ bargh! <ngup qengwI'pu''e'> vIghItlh 'e' vIHech.
Ahh, that makes sense.
That being said, I see now that I'd misunderstood the story, thanks
to my lacking understanding of what a canopy was. I thought it was
the same as his "train", which I took to be a long, cape-like thing,
but I understand now that it's really something like what's shown in
this illustration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emperor_Clothes_01.jpg
Anybody got a good word for that?
I'd just leave it with the ngup. It's something that gets carried in
a precession, good enough, as it doesn't enter the plot in any way.
>>[6] Based on la'quv. Not quite kosher, I know, but I feel the
>>extravagant title feeds into the ridiculousness of this situation.
>I can take it. You could consider tevmey nob.
Good point. Not sure what exactly a tev is, however. In my mind, a
stuffed bunny won at the carnival is a prize, and a Purple Heart is
not. Therefore, I'm not sure this honor would be a tev, either.
Perhaps van'a' ("award")?
Heh. I wonder what Klingons win at carnivals. Degh is medal.
>>[7] I'm treating Sut as a whole set of clothes, as that's how I
>>interpret the gloss, "clothing" (and possibly even a whole pile of
>>clothing). As such, a single article of clothing would be Sut 'ay'
>>(or SutHom?). Qoch'a' vay'?
>I think any article of clothing is Sut and I use Sutmey or Sut for
>the whole lot. I always have to guard against thinking of it as "suit".
Indeed, the similarity is a bit too close for comfort.
That being said, the fact that the gloss really is "clothing" and
not "piece of clothing" makes me think it's a collective noun.
I'm happy with Sut meaning either an article or the whole set. My
jodhpurs are clothing. My socks are clothing. My bra is clothing.
They will still be clothing when I take them off in an hour or so and
dump them on the wooden horse next to the bed,
Sut vItu'.
nuq?
yopwaH.
>I liked that.
vaj jIQuch!
>And you see it distracted me from posting the next
>chapter of my story for a day, so it's a win for everyone. :-)
qabotchu'be'mo' jIQuch!
not chobotlaHchu'qu'. tlhoS 'ay''a' wa'maH vIrInmoHta'. DaH 'ay'
cha'vatlh vIqonlI'. lut vIqon 'e' vItIvqu'. lutmey vIlaD 'e' vItiv
je. yIqontaH!
- Qov
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol