tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 01 11:13:19 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] ghargh Doq HoD je -- loSDIch
On 7/1/2014 12:49 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
quljIb:
I know this gets confusing, but once I've got everything straight and
grammatical, I shall put the whole thing together correctly and in order
for you all to enjoy!!!
Since no none has responded yet, here are some suggestions...
Herein we compare the Mountain and the Red Viper and how they stack up
against each other:
Is it really crucial to the story that you need measurements out to two decimal points? I know that Okrand says that "a Klingon ... is never approximate" but this is a story, not a technical manual. I'd use the closest Klingon measurement; if necessary, rounding up. E.g.
jav 'ujmey 'ab SuvwI'
the warrior has a length of six ujs' (about 6'10") (st.k 10/22/97)
wej 'ujmey 'ab 'oy'naQ
Painstiks are a little over one meter long S32
Point made, however I do have at my disposal the Mountain's *exact*
measurements. In particular the sword is *explicitly* mentioned as
being 64 inches long.
{tIqqu' HoD. jav vI' wa' 'uj 'aD. 'ej tIqqu' yanDaj. loS vI' jav loS
'uj 'aD yan.}
"The Mountain was very tall. 6.1 ujs (seven feet) tall. And his sword
was very long. 4.64 ujs (64 inches) long."
I'd combine some of these short sentences (and round up the measurements):
tIqqu' HoD; jav 'uj(mey) 'aD. 'ej tIqqu' je yanDaj: vagh 'uj.
the mountain was very tall, measuring 6 ujs. And his sword
was quite long too: 5 ujs.
I generally omit {-mey} on nouns after numbers. Seems redundant. YMMV.
Wasn't too sure about combining sentences. As I've noted earlier,
{tlhIngan Hol} seems to work best in short, choppy sentences. But if
the Ca'Non Master says so...
{'ughqu' HoD. Hut vI' wej cheb'a' ngI'. 'ej 'ughqu' yanDaj.
Cha' vI' vagh cheb ngI' yan.}
"The Mountain was massive. He weighed 9.3 cheb'a's (approx. 420-430
lbs) And his sword was massive. It weighed 2.5 chebs (12-13 lbs)."
'ughqu' HoD; Hut cheb'a'(mey) ngI'. 'ej 'ughqu' yanDaj je: wej cheb.
{'ej 'ughqu' may'luchDaj. mIv je DaS tuQ HoD 'ej wamaH cheb ngI' HoD
mayluch'e'}
"And his armour was massive. He wore full armour, which weighed 10
chebs (50 lbs)"
'ej 'ughqu' may'luchDaj. mIv je DaS tuQ HoD; wa'maH cheb(mey) ngI'.
{'ach Hod yan tIq puS, ghargh ghIntaq tIq law'}
"But for all the Mountains sword was long, the Viper's spear was longer."
AFAIK you can't reverse the order of {law'} and {puS}. The {law'} element comes first:
'ach ghargh ghIntaq tIq law' HoD yan tIq puS.
"If one state of affairs in not inherently better or worse than its opposite, terms may occur in either order." (KGT 179)
Being longer isn't normally better or worse than being shorter, although since in battle length *does* give one an advantage, I can see your point.
{loS vI' wa' cha' 'uj 'aD tIH. 'er'In, QIn'e' tu'lu'. wa' 'uj 'aD, 'ej
rur ghargh tIv jat.}
"The shaft was 4.12 ujs long (6 ft.). At one end was a sharp blade 1 uj
(just over a foot) long and shaped like the tongue of a large serpent."
{'er'In} and {megh'an} are nouns and in a place stamp need to be marked by {-Daq}:
'er'InDaq ghargh tIn jat rurbogh QIn'e' tu'lu'; wa' 'uj(mey) 'aD.
{megh'an, moQ'e' DuwIHommey je tu'lu'. bID cheb ngI'.}
"At the other end, a spiked ball weighing half a cheb (roughly 2.5. lbs)."
Since 'er'In and megh'an *specifically* refer to locations at the ends
of something long & narrow, why would they? Isn't that a tad redundant?
megh'anDaq moQ'e' DuQwI'Hommey je tu'lu'; bID cheb ngI'.
Tagging {moQ} with {-e'} looks clumsy here. We know that on a dak'tahg:
moQDaq DuQwI'Hommey jej tu'lu'
A brutally spiked pommel fastens the hilt together. SP2
which you can just call a {moQ} for short:
KGT 61: at the end of the knife's handle ({ret'aq}) there is a spiked pommel, called simply {moQ} (sphere).
megh'anDaq moQ tu'lu'; bID cheb ngI'.
megh'anDaq bID cheb ngI'bogh moQ('e') tu'lu'.
If you really want to emphasize the "spikyness", you might say on the model of {DuQwI' pogh} "glavin, spike glove":
megh'anDaq DuQwI' moQ tu'lu'; bID cheb ngI'.
megh'anDaq bID cheb ngI'bogh DuQwI' moQ'e' tu'lu'.
I prefer the versions without the relative (-bogh} clause, though. Less wordy
Yeah, I agree with the use of {-bogh}, or rather lack thereof. }}:-)
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol