tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 02 08:16:23 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Esther I 1-9
batlh Duja' Marnen Laibow-Koser:
=Well, I thought I'd translate some psalms, but as I looked at them I realized a
=poetic text would be *very* difficult to render well in Klingon.
Ah yes. The book on bible translation I borrowed said people who'd just
translated the NT were always expected by the ministers to do the Psalms next,
and that something like Esther was much more like it.
I don't think so. yotlhHom, or juHyotlh, perhaps.
=naghHom let 'iH mosaic, mosaic tile
juHngup. Wonderful how Klingon lacks a word for wall. Let alone part.
=veng jen acropolis
An acropolis is not a high city, but the highest part of the city. I'd have
said veng Dung.
=1. qaStaHviS *HoDu* *quS* je jojDaq wa'vatlh cha'maH yoS'a'mey che'pu'bogh
= *'aHaSweroS* jajmey qaSpu' wani'mey.
I know that jajmey is the subject of qaStaHvIS, but where the che'pu'bogh
phrase fitted in threw me. One cannot demand you use 'e' to disambiguate
the relative clause, since this is optional in Klingon, but this still
looks uncomfortable: while between India and Ethiopia A. (who ruled 120
provinces)'s days were happening, these things happened. I feel tempted
to suggest you say che'taHvIS blah blah, or: *HoDu* *quS* je... che' A... .
qaStaHvIS ghu'vam jajmey, qaSpu' wanI'mey.
=3. qaStaHviS che'ghachDaj DiS wejDich yaSpu'DajvaD bo'Dijnuvpu'DajvaD je 'uQ'a'
= chenmoHpu' *'aHaSweroS*. SaHpu' *perSiya* *meDiya* je mangghom yaSpu',
= chuQun, yoS'a' che'wi'pu' je,
Do you build banquets? It's a matter of arranging, and since I can't find
a word for that in TKD, I'd suggest qaSmoH. Btw, as Mark said of Matthew's
Ruth translation, you're using -pu' where none should be; in a narrative,
this is likelier than not to have a pluperfect effect. Think functionalism.
I think a wider use of commas would be only polite. I don't give much of
a stuff about the fact that Klingons don't use commas; we're not native
speakers here, fer chrissakes.
=4. 'ej qaStaHviS jajmey law', qaStaHviS biD DiS, wo'Daj mipghach DojghachDaj
= Dunghach je 'angpu'.
If you'll not use commas, at least a "je" after DojghachDaj.
=5. rintaHDi' wani'vam, *SuSa* veng jenDaq Qongbogh loDpu' HochvaD ta' qachHom
= Du'HomDaq Soch jaj yupma' chenmoHpu' ta'. potlhwi'vaD potlhbe'wi'vaD je
Again, I'd have said qaSmoH. Your prepositional phrase order took me by
surprise --- and made me miss commas even more ;) ... to all the sleeping men?
=6. 'iHchoHmeH Du'Hom, baS chiS QebmeyDaq *linen* tlheghHommey nagh chiS tutmey
= Doq *qoton* ngupmey chiS Doq je lurarlu', 'ej *porviriy* nagh chiS naghmey
= wovghachmey Sar je naghHom let 'iH ravDaq baS chiS baS SuD je quS'a'mey.
Only one thing would help resolve this mess of words, and you've used it
right after "lurarlu'" ;) . The second sentence doesn't look like having a
verb --- it might not hurt to put one in. Also, we have no evidence of
prepositional phrases being able to modify nouns, so the ravDaq is probably
out of place where it is. (Debate welcome.)
=7. 'ej baS SuD Hivje'meyDaq tlhutlhlaHwi'mey lujablu'pu', 'ej Hivje'mey Hoch
= pimchuq; 'ej ta' Hiq law'bejqu' tu'lu'pu' -- 'e' ghajniS ta'.
I did a correction of this before realising that tlhutlhlHwI'mey means
"drinkables", not "those who can drink". The conflation of passive and active
in this suffix is aggravating, but liveable. (English could do worse! ;)
I still don't trust the -Daq, and would like a paraphrase using "lo'taHvIS"
or "ngaSbogh", but this is probably unnecessary. I believe HIvje'mey Hoch
is the *subject* of pimchuq. 'e' ghajnIS doesn't make sense to me --- do
you mean "need for this to happen"? Probably again: 'e' qaSmoHnIS ta'. I
doubt one can 'have' predications.
=8. 'ach chut lobbe'pu' tlhutlhghach: ra'pu' pagh; tlhutlh luneHDi' mebpu' Hoch
= jab jabwi'pu' 'e' ghaH ra'pu' ta'.
This has lost me. "But the lawbreaker's thirst/thirst broke the law: noone
commanded. As soon as all guests want to drink, servers would serve them, the
emperor ordered him." "any" should be "vay'" (for the reason why "vay'" and
not "Hoch", ask a Lojbanist ;) ).
=9. ta' *'aHaSweroS* ta' juHDaq be'pu'vaD yupma' chenmoHpu' be'ta' *vaStiy* je.
The two "ta'" look unneccesary; either call the palace a "ta'juH", or eliminate
one of the two "ta'". "ta'be'" would probably be more in keeping with
precedent than "be'ta'".
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
Nick Nicholas. Melbourne University, Australia. email@example.com
"Some of the English might say that the Irish orthography is very Irish.
Personally, I have a lot of respect for a people who can create something so
-- Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>, <9307262008.AA95951@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk>
- Esther I 1-9
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Marnen Laibow-Koser)