tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 22 20:58:06 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] The Legend of Gorath part 3
ghItlhpu' gheyIl, jatlh:
> Grandfather: Later, as Gorath ate with his family, he told the story of
> the ambush.
> vavnI': SIbI'Ha' SoptaHvIS ghoratlh qorDu'Daj je ghachpu' cha' nIHwI' ja'.
Again, punctuation would help you out, to make it clear that it was not Gorath AND his family that were being ambushed (they could be serving as the object of {ghach} here).
Also, you're missing an {'e'} in there - {ghachpu' cha' nIHwI' 'e' ja'} "he said that two thieves had ambushed him".
taH:
> Gorath: …then, they attacked. I stood my ground.
> ghoratlh: …vaj muHIv. jIHeDbe'.
For "then", you'd be better off going for {ghIq} "then, subsequently" or {ngugh} "then, at that time"; I don't think {vaj} quite works here.
(poD vay')
> Gorath: Four of them. Tall and strong. Twenty of them. I wasted no time
> in teaching them a lesson or two. I spun left. I turned right. Swinging
> my betleH with all of my strength to fend them off.
> ghoratlh: loS tu'lu'. runbe'qu' 'ej HoS.
We do have the nicely appropriate verb {woch} "be tall" (HQ 13:1).
(poD vay')
> cha'maH tu'lu'. jIHvo' nom Doch puS ghoj chaH. poSDaq jIDIng. nIHDaq
> jItlhe'. betleHwIj vIDIngmeH HoSwIj Hoch {1} vIlo' 'ej vI'ompu'.
I have no problems with {HoSwIj Hoch}, and it's the structure I find myself using most often. Some speakers prefer {HoSwIj naQ}, but it's a matter of style rather than of grammar (both are grammatically correct).
> Barwench: And they didn’t land a single blow.
> tebwI': 'ej not nImup'a'?
Maybe perfective would be better here: {not nImuppu''a'}.
> Gorath: Not a scratch. I was too fast, too agile, too deadly for the
> likes of them. More bloodwine.
> ghoratlh: jIrIQHa'chu'.
{rIQHa'} implies that he was injured but became well. {jIrIQbe'chu'} - perhaps even with a continuous suffix to emphasise it, {jIrIQbe'chu'taH} - would be better for implying that he was not injured at all by them.
> pe'vIl roS jIvang.
Hrm. The purpose of {roS} here isn't clear; it doesn't relate to anything else in the sentence syntactically.
Just my two cents, but I'd tend to render your sentence with nouns rather than verbs; "I was too fast, too agile, too deadly for the likes of them" goes well into something like this:
SIQmeH Seghchaj 'Iq DowIj, 'Iq laHwIj, 'Iq QobwIj
"my speed was too much, my ability was too much, my danger was too much for their type to endure"
> jIH po' law' chaH po' puS.
> {2} 'Iw HIq latlh!
(poD vay')
> {2} I couldn't think of anything better for "deadly/lethal" ... perhaps
> <Qob> ?
{Qob} is a good recasting, I think.
> Grandfather: It wsn’t long before stories of his exploits reached the
> powerful House of Bronal.
> vavnI': tugh bIro'nal {3} tuq HoSghaj SIchpu' chavHeyDaj lutmey.
> Boy: I know Bronal. Kahless defeated him at...
> loDHom: bIro'nal vISov. jey qeylIS 'ej...
> Grandfather: Yes, yes, but this happens before all of that. Be silent
> and listen. The House of Bronal...
> vavnI': HIja', 'ach qaSpa' Hochvetlh qaS lutvam. yItam'eghmoH 'ej
> yI'Ij. bIro'nal tuq...
maj.
> Bronal: And this warrior ... he is alone?
> bIro'nal: toH, SuvwI'vam ... mob'a'?
Putting a topicalising {-'e'} is an easy and grammatical way of shifting a noun to the start of the utterance this way: "Well, as for this warrior... he is alone?"
> Spy: Yes, my lord.
> ghoqwI': HIja' jawwI'.
> Bronal: He dispatched over 20 bandits, you say?
> bIro'nal: nIteb cha'maH nIHwI' HoHta' qar'a'?
> Spy: Yes, my lord. And walked away without a scratch.
> ghoqwI': HIja' jawwI'. 'ej mejDI' rIQbe'.
> Bronal: I see.
> bIro'nal: toH.
> Spy: Would you like to see him for yourself? He could be brought before
> your magnificence.
> ghoqwI': DaqIH DaneH'a'?
"Would you like to see him for yourself?" contains a lot of emphasis on "you" and "yourself", and putting in an explicit pronoun for emphasis would render this really nicely: {DaqIH SoH DaneH'a'} "Do YOU want to meet him?"
> chaq tlhop'a'lIjDaq qemlu'.
An interesting way of putting "in front of your magnificence". :) Unfortunately, I don't think it quite works. For a start, {tlhop'a'} sounds more like "everything in front" or the like; it augments the idea of the area, not the person possessing it. The other thing is that in standard Klingon, locative nouns like {tlhop} don't take possessive suffixes (see KGT p.24); they appear in noun-noun constructions with a pronoun, so {jIH tlhopDaq} "in front of me". {SoH tlhopDaq} is really all you need. But to render "your magnificence", why not take the opportunity to use an honourific? {chaq SoH tlhopDaq qemlu'neS} "he may be brought before you, your honour".
> Bronal: No. If he is as powerful as you say, I will be inviting the
> cyclone into my home. Fetch my assassins.
> bIro'nal: ghobe'. HoSghajchu' 'e' vIvItchugh
{vIt} is "tell the truth". Would {voq} "trust" be better here? {HoSghajchu' 'e' vIvoqchugh} "if I trust that he is so powerful"?
> vaj juHwIjDaq SuS'a' vIqem. naDev HoHwI'pu'wI' {4} yIqem.
Remember that when the object of an imperative is plural, the appropriate pronominal prefix is {tI-}; {yIqem} is "bring it!", {tIqem} is "bring them!".
(poD vay')
> {4} There must be a better way to say "assassin"
We have a fairly rich vocabulary of verbs for killing, but {chot} "murder" and {chotwI'} "murderer" might be most appropriate here.
QeS
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}