tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 08 09:56:06 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] voDleH Sut chu' (or, paghmo' tIn mIS)
>> 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.
>Intriguing, but there's no canon evidence for that pattern.
Well, there is this from TKD:
> This sentence might also be translated <I cause a boarding
> party to be formed.>
>
> {HIQoymoH} <let me hear (something)> ({Qoy} <hear>) [[(something):=(something)!]]
>
> More revealingly, this sentence could be translated <cause me
> to hear (something).>
There's also some glosses that indicate that it's so (but there are also some that indicate that it isn't, so this hint is either moot or ambiguous).
That being said, since all other evidence seems to be to the contrary (although I may have been a bit , I'm ready to concede this point... ...and the explanations that you and SuStel give are certainly a lot more appealing than my "the English glosses are more important than the Klingon stems" interpretation; will comment more on this in the thread discussing this matter, but for now.
>>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.
qar'a'? Dajqu'! nuqDaq De'vam Daghoj?
> 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.
Good point. My main concern was avoiding a statement that seemed too trivial.
"Many years ago, an Emperor was alive."
That being said, Klingons seem fond of two-sentence constructions, so perhaps it'd be fine to just go with ben law' yIntaH voDleH.
>>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.
jIQochbe'. You're talking to a person who's thinking of making a Klingon adaptation of "The Raven" with no mention of birds ;)
>For your wish, maybe {'elwI'pu' ghomDaq leng}
Works for me.
>>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?
I feel that "among them" is the only sensible way to interpret this, and that it's therefore unambiguous enough.
[Well, maybe one COULD interpret it as though they were traveling TOWARDS the enterers, which would be unfortunate. In that case, tlhej really would be preferable.
I was tempted to use [lu]tu'lu', but I didn't want to make it out as though one had discovered them to be tricksters right from the start.]
>>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?
muHIv not 'e' mev veqlargh. Hoch qabDaq tujqu' qul! HochDaq qul yIchenmoH ghotI' ru'!
ngIl. ngIl is what I meant to write.
>>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.
bIjatlhDI' bIval.
>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.
As I see it, it's the legh I want to qualify, because when there is nothing to see, to see nothing is to see perfectly.
paghna' leghchu' works for me, though. pagh legh works in and of itself, but I'd like leghchu' to be contrasted with leghHa'.
That being said, that may be another one of my valQISmey*.
*I hereby coin valQIS to mean "a darling in need of killing", in reference and deference to the great Qugh joH.
>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.
cholughmoH qatlho'.
>>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.
teH.
>So how about SIrghjan lurgh bej.
pup!
>>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.
vImerlu'.
>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.
Good point. I still think it may be valid, but how about qaSDI' much wa'Hu' ram <whatever> ("they do something yesterday when the presentation happens")? Very strange in English, but part of me likes it.
Another alternative is to do something like wa'leS qaS QI' much'a'. DaHjaj ram <whatever>. ("At this point in our story, the parade happens tomorrow. Tonight, stuf happens.")
>My difficulty understanding it may have been in the four noun and a
>verb pileup before the adverb.
Good point. I do feel that many of my sentences are unnecessarily bulky, which is indicative of translation and therefore rather unfortunate.
>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.
Dajqu'! That being said, I hadn't even read the whole thing before, and yet I knew there was a parade; I think certain parts of that story are nailed into many of our heads simply due to the cultures in which we grew up, just as are parts of "The Ugly Duckling", "Hansel and Gretel" and "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
>rpH
I got the essence of this comment, but I must admit to having to look up the exact definition ;)
>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?
I rather like neplI'bogh; gives the idea of lying towards an end.
That being said, if one is to do away with the alliteration, perhaps one might as well just write <jang voDleH>.
Another alternative: jang SuDbogh voDleH
>Doesn't work for me, but I'm not going to pretend to be an authority
>on V7 canon.
Type-7 verb suffixes... ...the final frontier.
>tuQmoH is glossed as "put on (clothes)" not "dress someone" or "put
>(clothes) on."
I don't always trust glosses, but you may have a point.
Interestingly, tuQHa'moH is glossed as "to undress", so perhaps it really is as De'vID suggests, and tuQmoH, like lo'laH, is a set expression, and one can say such things as <yopwaH vItuQmoHHa'qangbe' Qel> ("I'm unwilling to drop my pants, Doctor."
> I don't even get "the there nobility" in English.
Basically, the idea is that it's "the nobility pertaining to there", which is to say those that are present.
>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.
Good point. Will have to rewrite a bit.
...'ach DaH jImejnIS. naDev vIcheghbej!
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol