tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 07 20:20:49 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KBTP: Mark's Jonah
- From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
- Subject: KBTP: Mark's Jonah
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 15:20:11 EDT
Grrrrrr.
Hmpf. Now that all is out of the way...
... Mark, old bean, I've finally cut the Gordian knot, and printed out your
translation and looked at it. Lots and lots of juicy commentary follows.
}'ej HuchDaj DIl 'ej joH'a'vo' tarSISDaq chaH tlhejmeH 'oH 'el.
Huch DIl'a'? No, sir. DIl means "pay for", so you're saying he's paying for
his money. You mean to say "pay with", and I'd suggest "HuchDaj lo'" for that.
chaH 'iv?
}'ej bIQ'a'Daq jev,
Too much of a grammatical liberty for me. jevghach at the least, and probably
something more like mudralghach.
Too many 'ej's btw. In my _marqoS_, in the original of which just about every
sentence starts with "kai", I just left them out most of the time. They're
not really contributing anything substantial.
}chaq joH'a' wIbelmoH vaj maHeghbe'.>>
I'd have said wIbelmoHchugh; any reason why you don't? The -chugh-less
construct is certainly difficult to understand.
}vaj SuD, 'ej yona 'anglu'.
'anglu'? Mpf. Not terribly clear. Perhaps lellu'?
}QapghachlIj nuq? 'ej nuqvo' bIghoS? nuq 'oH wo'lIj'e'?
By Krankorian edict, that 'oH may be superfluous.
}'ej chaHvaD jang <<'IbrIyngan jIH, 'ej joH'a', bIQ'a' yav je chenmoHbogh
}chal joH'e' vItoy'.>>
Is the joH'a' in apposition with the remainder of the sentence? As it stands,
the ambiguity is very confusing, and at the least, I'd put joH'a' at the
end of the sentence. (Think of it as heavy clause movement... to the left.)
}joH'a'vo' Haw' 'e' luSovmo', chaHvaD ja'ta'mo'.
I believe Klingon has no indirect quotes. Change the verb from ja', or
make it a direct quote.
}<<SuH joH'a', yIn loDvammo' maHeghbe'jaj,
yIn loDvam? Don't you mean loDvam yIn, "the life of this man"?
}<<'oy'wIjDaq jIHtaHvIS joH'a'vaD jIjachpu' 'ej mujang,
I'm surprised at you, Mark. "I am in pain" is English idiom, pure and simple.
If you want to keep the parallelism with
}ghe''or burghDaq jIHtaHvIS
say something like mu{dech/seng/ghatlh}taHvIS 'oy'
}pungchaj ghajHa' ramwI' ngeb toy'wI'pu',
Is there an apposition in these last three words? I don't understand them.
}'ach ghogh tlho' vIlo'taHvIS qatoy' jIH'e',
tlho' ghogh, I'd think.
}Dochmey vI'Ippu'bogh vInob, toDghach ghajmo' joH'a'.>>
The Lord *has* salvation? This doesn't even imply "The Lord *owns* salvation".
ghajmoH, perhaps: "grants".
}'ej bIQ'a' Ha'DIbaH ra' joH'a', vaj puHDaq yona [SopHa'].
SopHa' is OK; you might consider "burghvo' haw'moH/teq"
}vaj SopQo'ghach lura', 'ej Sut ghegh tuQ potlhchaj ramwI'chaj je.
Why is this not Sopbe'ghach?
}'ej De' Hev nInvey ta', 'ej quSDajvo' Hu',
As you did elsewhere, maybe make this *ninvey* ta' Qumlu'
}'ej jach, 'ej ra'mo' ta' yaSDaj je nInveyDaq jatlhlu'
You substituted yaS with chuQun; chuQun "nobility" sounds more like an
institution than a group of people. chuQunghotpu', perhaps?
}'ej Hechaj mIghvo' ralghachchajvo' ngaSbogh ghopDu'chaj je chegh'eghjaj.
Thanks for the chegh'egh ;)
The old Because of the ship in which I flew problem. I don't think this is
any solution, Mark. I'd seriously advocate the Turkish solution here
(ghopDu'Daj lungaSghach ralghachchajvo')
}vaj wuqqa' joH'a' 'ej QeH 'e' mev 'ej maHeghbe' 'e' Sov 'Iv?>>
wuqqa' for reconsider? Somehow I doubt you should get away with this. wuqHa',
at least: undo your decision.
}<<SuH, joH'a', wo'wIjDaq jIHtaHvIS vuDwIj 'oH Dochvam'e', qar'a'?
vuDvam vIghaj would do nicely.
}'ej Dochvammo' tarSISDaq jIHaw'pu';
vuDvammo', I'd suggest; make the referent tracking unambiguous.
}pa' juHHom cher, 'ej QIbDaq bIngDajDaq ba'.
In its shadow, in it's underneath? If that's what you meant, ok, though
QibDa*j* bIngDaq is what I would have said...
}'ach nabmo' joH'a' tlha'bogh jaj jajlo' naH Sor HIv ghargh,
I doubt as long an expression as "tlha'bogh jaj jajlo'" would still be
adverbial; I'd just go "qaSDI' blah...", and just "tlha'bogh jajlo'"
}vaj tujDI' Hov, nabmo' joH'a' qaS 'et[?????] SuS,
To distinguish the Sun from the Stars, I'd say Hov'a'.
}'ej Hegh neH, 'ej ja' <<HeghwIj QaQ law' yInwIj QaQ puS.>>
To disambiguate the two senses of neH, I'd say neHbej. The old evidential-as-
-grammatical-categoriser trick.
}'ej yonavaD ja' joH'a' <<QaQ'a' naH Sormo' bIQeHghach?>>
I still don't think Prepositional phrases can qualify noun phrases.
}<<naH Sormo' bIvumpu'be'bogh 'ej Dapeppu'be'bogh 'ej
}wa' ram SaHbogh 'ej wa' ram lojbogh pung Daghaj SoH,
}'ej nInveymo' veng tInmo', nIHchajmo' poSchajmo' mISbogh cha' netlh [???]
}nuv Ha'DIbaHmey law' je ngaSbogh 'oH pung vIghajbe''a'?>>
Yuck. If people cannot parse it in reading it, don't use it. Rhetorical
questions we don't know will work in Hol, two levels of nesting of -mo'...
uh-uh. May I suggest:
bIvumpu'be'moHbogh 'ej Dapeppu'be'moHbogh [Que'?] 'ej wa' ram SaHbogh 'ej
wa' ram lojbogh naH Sor'e' Davupba' SoH.
*nInvey* veng tIn'e', nIHchaj poSchaj je ghovbe'bogh wa' bIp cha' netlh nuv
latlhpu' je Ha'DibaH law' je ngaSbogh veng'e' vIvupbe'law'!
---
It was a good translation, Mark, and I apologise if I came across too brusque
in my response; I'm still fuming...
--
***
"Relax." -- "yIleS." [Three seconds pause.] "Stop Relaxing!" -- "yIleSHa'!"
--- the Conversational Klingon tape.
Nick "I am not a Klingon. Much." Nicholas. [email protected]
nIchyon jIH. nIchyon SoHbe'. nIchyon ghaHbe'. nIchyon tlhIHbe'. nIchyon jIHqu'.