tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 09 18:05:27 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KBTP: Mark's Jonah



batlh choja', Mark E. Shoulson quv:

=>}'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.
=Blah.  I'd hoped to get away with stretching that verb.  Your suggestion
=doesn't work either, in that it points out a problem with mine: the
=original has "and he paid *its* fare" (i.e. the boat's).  You can tell 'cuz
=the boat is feminine and Jonah's masculine.  Maybe just "Huch nob"?  Come
=to think of it, the Hebrew is "gave", not "paid".

*scratches head* Well, maybe explicitly name "fare", and say: tIjghach DIl.

=Maybe le'moHlu'?  Was singled out?

Yes. I like this one.

=>}QapghachlIj nuq?  'ej nuqvo' bIghoS?  nuq 'oH wo'lIj'e'? 
=>By Krankorian edict, that 'oH may be superfluous.
=Maybe, but I think I like it there.

Well, it occurs to me that many of us like making Klingon a race for how
few words we can use in a sentence --- certainly a thrill in Shakespeare ;)
Whatever.

=>}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.
=I agree that Klingon has no indirect quotes, but I'm not sure that this is
=an attempt at one.  "For they knew he was fleeing from God, because he had
=told them [no object]" maybe?  What other verb would you recommend?  I'm
=not sure this needs changing.

Ah, I misunderstood. (I made a point of not reading any nonKlingon translation
of this.) I thought it was "for he told them "because I am feeling from God".
Big problem: which clause here is dependent on which? I'd just kill the -mo'
from "luSov"; better to sacrifice one intersentential link, than to confuse
the intrasentential intelligibility.

=>}'ej yonavaD ja' joH'a' <<QaQ'a' naH Sormo' bIQeHghach?>>
=>I still don't think Prepositional phrases can qualify noun phrases.
=Well, then how else can I get the clause into the subject place of QaQ?
=Can you consider the -ghach as nominalizing the whole sentence {naH Sormo'
=bIQeH}?  That was the intent.

No, I don't really think so. I suggest you raise this matter directly with
Krankor, since he is unlikely to read this. I do not think -ghach can 
nominalise entire sentences, and the only way I can see of getting naH Sor
into the noun phrase is: QaQ'a' naH Sor bIQeHghach.

-- 
***
"Relax." -- "yIleS." [Three seconds pause.] "Stop Relaxing!" -- "yIleSHa'!"
                                  --- the Conversational Klingon tape.
   Nick "I am not a Klingon. Much." Nicholas.    nsn@krang.vis.mu.oz.au
nIchyon jIH. nIchyon SoHbe'. nIchyon ghaHbe'. nIchyon tlhIHbe'. nIchyon jIHqu'.



Back to archive top level