tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 10 10:04:13 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- From: email@example.com (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: vaj lut
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 13:03:59 -0500
- In-Reply-To: DSTRADER@delphi.com's message of Mon, 29 Nov 1993 20:58:26 -0400 (EDT) <01H5WFN4CM7W8ZGE7D@delphi.com>
>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 20:58:26 -0400 (EDT)
OK, I finally remembered to finish reading Guido#1's excellent story-start,
and have some comments. If you haven't read it yet, go to it, it's really
great. THIS MESSAGE CONATINS SPOILERS as I translate some of the text, so
don't read this unless you're done with the original.
For the most part I understood it perfectly; I won't translate each and
every line. Many of my comments are just stylistic questions.
>ghochwIjDaq jIpawmeH Duj chu' vIpoQ tugh ghorbejmo' Dujvam
Domehow "break" seems awfully English to me. It sounds idiomatic. Maybe
QapHa'choH would imply better that it would break down/quit working/etc. I
>muSambe'meH jagh Duj mach neH munoblu'pu'
This is the only indisputable thing wrong I've found in the whole article.
In this one case (nowhere else) you forgot that "-lu'" reverses the
meanings of the prefixes. So "I was given/someone gave [to] me" should be
"vInoblu'", not "*munoblu'". Page 39, at the top.
>tengchaHDaq verghtaHvIS DujwIj muyu'choH avwI'pu'
>jIpIHbe'law' 'e' lutu'
This is just my take on it, but to me "pIH" means "be suspicious" in the
sense of "be suspicious of others", not "be worthy of suspicion". I base
this opinion on its other meaning, "to expect", which seems very related to
that sense of "be suspicious" (expecting certain actions of others, etc).
I dunno, maybe vIpIHnISbe'lu'law'? (apparently I didn't have to be
>vIjollu'pu'DI' qawHaqvaD nuqDaq Duj lungevlu' vItlhob
I asked "for" the memory banks? Bleah, you have a point: it'd make more
sense to but the "-vaD" on the question and keep the qawHaq as the object,
but you can't "-vaD" a quote. But since you're treating "tlhob" as a verb
of speech (no 'e'), you don't need it. I'd reverse the order and do
"nuqDaq Duj lungevlu' qawHaq vItlhob," and then I'd feel guilty about it
because of the howling ambiguity. But I really don't think "-vaD" works
where you're using it.
>pa' vIghoSbogh ghaH wa' verengan moH'e' neH
I presume this is "in the room to which I went." This is either the
ship-in-which-I-fled problem, or the in-the-ship-which-I-saw problem (i.e.
the room is the object of the relative clause and locative in the main
clause.) I don't know that there are any good answers for this; you've
seen all the proposed ones already. Make of them what you will. However,
the locative is really necessary in the main clause, since otherwise it
sounds like the Ferengi is a room.
>'ay' wejDaq jIpawDI' jatlh verengan <naDev yIghoS
>SoHvaD vay' vIta''a'>
Hee. Apparently not a Klingon, eh? :-)
>tlhIngan Hol jatlhchu'be'qu' Suyvam nuQ
Are you using "nuQ" as an adjective, "this annoying [to people in general]"
merchant? I'm not sure Krankor would allow this, but I'm not sure you
can't do this, as N V is like Vbogh N to me. It did throw me a bit tho.
>jatlh <luq naDev 'oH Duj Dun
If he were a native speaker, he'd have an -'e' on Dun, but you say yourself
that his Klingon isn't perfect.
>pIvlob Soch je meH 'I- >
I'm not sure what he was in the middle of trying to blather about; it
probably doesn't matter.
>jatlh <cha'netlh vaghSanID>
Aww, use "jang" to break up the monotony.
>DujvaD yuQ vIbavmoH
Are you trying to do that bit with "-vaD" on double-object "-moH" words
that we had that argument about? It sounds backwards to me (i.e. I
expected the -vaD on the planet), but when I think about it my choice of
who gets the "-vaD" and who doesn't seems not to be consistent, so I'll
>vIjach <Hu'tegh Duj Say'moHtaHbe' yIntaghvetlh
I was going to be confused about the -moHtaH in Say'moHtaHbe', but I just
now see it. "He didn't keep the ship clean", right?
>yIH ngIm vIHotqangbe'ba'mo' 'oHvaD SIbI' tar vIje' 'ej meHvo' vIpup neH
I think adverbials come first, before the 'oHvaD.
>qay'taHbe'DI' ghoch vIcher 'ej mIch Hut ghoSlI'bogh Duj vIghoSchoH
"ghoch vIcher" is "lay in a destination," right? The "-'e'" on the
relative clause (presumably on Duj) is optional, that's fine.
>vaj tagh lengwIj potlh
Nick, I recall, used, taghlu' for a similar situation, but Okrand has
"taghbej mu'qaD veS" in PK, so using it intransitively is apparently OK.
toH might be better than vaj.
>wej rIn lut - leS taH
vIloSqangbe'law'! Dajqu' lutlIj. yItaH!
>Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos