tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 23 15:03:07 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Chapter 1 of Ruth

>From: "Matthew Whiteacre" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 12:21:33 CDT

>I have been work on the biblical translation of Ruth.  I have finished 
>Chapter 1 (which also took me about 10 hours) and am including it below.

Well, it's good to see some more chunks of text!

>I think the worst non-canon thing I did (not counting outright mistakes) 
>was to include noun suffixes on pronouns.  Anyway I'll let the tlhInagnpu' 
>and the pabpo' comment on it and probably post a revised version later.

I guess that's us.  Apologies in advance if I'm too harsh.

>1:1 qaS noHwI'pu' poHDaq wo'Daq qub Soj
>mo'ab HatlhDaq jaH be'leHemjuDe' loD
>jaH je be'nalDaj cha' puqloD je

>From what we've seen in TKD (qaStaHvIS wa; ram loS Sad Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh
loD), it would seem that you really can't extend locatives to mean time.
"-Daq" is an indication of area, it's not some kind of codeword for English
"in".  "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged" would
prbably go best as "qaS, noHtaHvIS noHwI'pu'."  "qub Soj" works okay.

"Bethlehem" would probably transliterate best to "betleHem"; that's pretty
close to how it sounds in Hebrew (which is what you're really trying to
translate, though you're doing it once or twice removed.)  mI suppose
Wilson's transliteration rules would have you use "*beytleHem," but "-ytl"
isn't something you'd ever see in the middle of a Klingon word, so I'd
avoid it in transliterations.  I guess "Judea" would be "yeHuDa", at best
try...

I see you're interpreting "man from bethlehem" to mean that that was his
home, not where he went from to go to the fields of Moab.  Could work
either way, this is fine.

I don't understand the "je" after "jaH".  Maybe "jaH ghaH be'nalDaj je cha'
puqloDDaj je"?

>1:2 Iy'lImeleH ghaHpu' loD pong'e'
>ney'omI' ghaHpu' be'nalDaj pong'e'
>ma'lon Qileon je chaHpu' puqloDDaj pong'e'
>be'leHemjuDe' erataytngan chaHpu'
>mo'ab Hatlh lu'el 'ej pa' yIntaH chaH

Klingon words don't start with vowels (neither to most Hebrew words, for
that matter); you need a consonant at the beginning.  I'm not sure where
you got your transliteration for Elimelech's name, maybe you have a
different pronunciation.  I'd have done "'elIymeleH", probably.

"ghaH" refers to sentient things, so it's the wrong pronoun to use for the
copula for the names.  It should be "'oH" (and bIH later on instead of
chaH, though the last chaH is right).  I don't think you really want all
those "-pu'"s there; they imply that those used to be their names before
all this story happened, but they aren't now.  As to the names, Wilson's
recommendations would probably yield something like na'omi, maHlon and
qIlyon.  "Ephrathites" would be maybe "'eprat nganpu'" or something.  Good
use of yIntaH.

>1:3 Heghpu' Iy'lImeleH  'ej chuv ney'omI cha' puqloDDaj je

Drop the "-pu'" again, he didn't die beforehand.  Don't want to try an
appositive or something to say that Elimelech, Naomi's husband died?  Fair
enough.  Good use of chuv.

>1:4 mo'ab be'pu' Sawpu' puqloDpu'
>'orpa pongpu' wa' 'ej rut pongpu' wa'
>wa'maH DISvaD pa' yIntaH chaH

Good use of "Saw", 'cept for the "-pu'" (i'll stop mentioning it).  Hmm...
"pong" seems to mean "to call bya name"; we went through this problem
before, how do you say "They call the wind Mariah"?  Is it "<<Mariah>> SuS
lupong"?  You avoided this problem earlier by saying something like "rut
'oH wa' pong"; you could do it again (I guess I have to accept numbers as
nouns in noun-noun constructions then).  Otherwise you should use something
like "wa'vaD rut ponglu'", but that's less sure.

Again, you should have "qaStaHvIS qa'maH DIS"; "-vaD" is not "for".

>1:5 Heghpu' cha' puqloD
>DaH puqloDpu'Daj loDnalDaj je ghajbe'pu' be'

Hmm.  I like "DaH" there, but I wonder if I should.  Maybe I'm being to
logical about it, but it's not really "now", is it?  I dunno.  I think I
liked the version that had it "chuv puqloDpu'Daj loDnalDaj je ghajbe'bogh
be''e'" or something.  "chuv" is such a fine word for the situation.

>1:6 mo'ab mej 'e' qeq be'
>ghotpu'Daj qaw joH'a' 'ej ghotpu'DajvaD Soj nobpu'
>'e' mo'ab HatlhDaq Qoypu'mo'

Hmmm... works, but you might consider "mo'ab mejmeH Hu' ghaH
<daughters-in-law>Daj je"... I like "-meH" clauses.  I don't realy mean
"<daughters in law>", but you left that part out of your translation.
Maybe a wise idea.  How would you translate it?  Maybe "puqloDpu'Daj
be'nalpu'"?

I don't trust "ghotpu'" for "people" in this case: this is the singular
"people", as in tribe.  Maybe "qorDu'['a']" (cf what I tried in Jonah).

>1:7 vaj Daq mej cha' puqloD be'nal ghaH je
>'ej juDe'Daq leng tagh chaH

"lumej", I think.

>1:8 cha' puqloD be'nal jatlh ney'omI
>SoS juHDaq yImej jatlh
>jIH Heghghach je juQaQmo' DuQaQjaj joH'a' jatlh

I'm not sure I see the reasons for the extra "jatlh"s, but your overall
construction is very nice.  However, "Heghghach" seems to be a synonym for
"Hegh"=="death"; you mean "the dead [ones]", which would be "Heghpu'wI'"
(those who have already dies).  "ju-" is not the prefix you're looking for;
you mean "you pl./us", probably.  That'd be "che-".  I like the use of
"-mo'" like that.  I think putting the beneficiaries of the goodness in the
object place (as you've done) is okay; if you're not, then you can use
"-vaD".

>1:9 bIleSlaHbogh tlhIHDaq juH loDnal je nobjaj joH'a' jatlh
>quvmoH 'ej SaQqu'

I don't quite understand your construction here.  From what I see, it's
"may God let you find rest, each in her husband's house".  Maybe "joH'a'mo'
loDnalpu'ra' juHDaq SuleSlaH"?  Note that "bI-" is for singular subjects.
Wish there were a word for "kiss", huh?  You might want to tack on a
pronoun so we know that it's *they* (or all three of 'em) who are crying,
not she

>1:10 ghomlI' HumanDaq machegh je lujatlh

"ghomlI' HumanDaq"?  That really doesn't work.  Your group's humans....
Sounds technical at best.  Maybe "mutlIj", but I don't like that at all
either.  I'd have to argue for something with "qorDu'" again.

>1:11 peDoH puqbe'wI'
>qatlh tutlha'
>bogh puqloD 'e' vIghaj'a' 'e' loDnalra' chaHjaj

Erm, peDoH sounds a little harsh.  Maybe "pechegh"?  Good use of  "pe-",
that's a tough one to remember.  "tu-" is another tricky one.

I don't follow the "bogh puqloD 'e' vIghaj"... "I have a son being born"?
Oh, to be born, maybe.  Hmmm.... seems hard to follow to me.  After all,
she's referring to the *son* who is to be born, which would ask for a
"-bogh" clause.  And the "-jaj" doesn't feel right either; it's a
rhetorical question: have I more sons in me that could be husbands for you?
Maybe "loDnalra' chaHmeH puloDpu' vIghaj'a'/vIboghmoHlaH'a'?"

>1:12 peDoH puqbe'wI'
>Hemeyra' Daleng tlhIH
>loDnal ghajmo' jIqan
>tulghach vInob'a' pagh loDnal vIghaj'a' pagh ghuloD vIbogh'a'

"tIghoS" might be better than "Daleng".  Note that "Da-" is for singualr
subjects, and "ghoS" means also "to follow a course", fitting in well with
Hemeyraj (not -ra', ways aren't sentient).  "I am too old to have a
husband" doesn't quite follow from "loDnal ghajmo' jIqan"; that means "I am
old because he/she/it has a husband".  I'd say "loDnal vIghajlaHbe' [or
mughajlaHbe' loDnal] jIqanmo'": I cannot have a husband/a husband cannot
have me, because I am old.

Hmm, I thought the last part was "If I said I had hope, even if I had a
husband tonight and bore sons".  Yours is a little different: can I give
hope? or else do I have a husband?  or else do I bear (should be boghmoH)
sons?  In any case "qoj" would be more appropriate than "pagh", since the
activities aren't mutually exclusive.

>1:13 loD mojvIS puqloDpu'vetlh'e' SuloSqang'a'
>loDnal ghajbe'vIS Suratlh'a'
>peratlhbe'qu'
>ney'omIvaD Seng joH'a''e' tlhIHvaD jI'IQqu'

"-vIS" has to have "-taH" on the verb also; should be "mojtaHvIS".  I
assume the "'e'" is supposed to be a separate word; that would make sense.
Very good use of "-qang", maybe throw one onto "Suratlh" while you're at it
(and ghajbe'taHvIS, btw).

>1:14 SaQqa'
>vaj 'orpa mej 'ach ratlh rut

Throw in a pronoun so we know who's crying, or we might think it's only
Naomi.  Check your text.  Does it say Orpah leaves?  I think it just says
she kisses her mother in law.  But that's something you can decide for
yourself how literal to be.  Good use of "ratlh"; it's a new verb to me,
and I like it.  You could use "chuv", but this is a place that Klingon is
more specific than the Hebrew (say).

>1:15 qorDu''a'DajDaq joHDajDaq ej chegh 'orpa 'e' Datu'
                                ^^--je
>yItlha'qu'

"yItu'" makes more sense; it's a command.

>1:16 qalon 'e' Datlhobbe'
>voghDaq bIlengchugh pa'Daq jIleng
>vogh bIyInchugh pa' jIyIn
>qorDu''a'lI' jIH qorDu''a'wI''e' 'ej joH'a'lI' jIH joH'a'wI''e'

Hmmm... With words of speech, I think it's right not to use "'e'", but to
have the sentences follow each other.  Moreover, there are no indirect
quotes in Klingon, so I think it should be "HIlon HItlhobQo'" (Do not ask
me "leave me!").  Remember, these are also commands.

"pa'" as "there" doesn't take "-Daq".  You might drop the "-Daq" on the
first "vogh", but I'd say you should certainly have one on the second.  If
we knew what we were doing with relative clauses you could do stuff with "I
will live in the place in which you live", but you have here a very slick
way of avoiding that trap.  Very good.  What are those "jIH"s doing?  If
they're supposed to be verbs, use "'oH"; "jIH" means "I am".  And it's
qorDu''a'lIj/qorDu''a'wIj, nations aren't speaking.  joH['a']lI'/wI' is
fine though.

>1:17 Daq bIHegh jIHegh 'ej pa' jImol
>jIHvaD Dochvam latlh je qaSmoHjaj joH'a' nulagh Heghghach

I think "DaqDaq bIHegh pa' jIHegh" sounds better; you need the locatives.
"chev" might be a better word that "lagh", I think.  And you need a
"-chugh" somewhere; it's "may God do so and so to me if anything but death
separates us" or something like that.  Or else consider it "because death
[alone] will separate us" and use "nuchevmo' Hegh neH" (Hegh is a noun, it
doesn't need "-ghach").

>1:18 QubchoHbe' 'e' tu'DI' ney'omI'e' pon 'e' mev  

I was going to correct that to "Qubbe'choH", but you're completely right:
the "-choH" is what';s being negated: excellent!

>1:19 be'leHemDaq lenglI' chaH
>be'leHemDaq pawDI' Sey veng naQ
>ney'omI jIH'a' nuvvam'e' tlhob Hoch

"ghaH'a'".  Keep your pronouns straight.

>1:20 ney'omI pongbe'lu' 'ach mara ponglu' yInghachwIj 'IQqu' raDmo' joH'a'

It's "call me mara", not "mara is called", right?  One way or another you
have to have "me" in there somewhere, or we don't know who'se being called.
If you want it to be the command form, use imperatives, like maybe "na'omIy
HIpongQo', mara HIpong...

>1:21 jImejDI' jInaQ 'ej jIcheghDI' jIchIm
>jIHDaq joH'a'mo' qaSpu' Dochmey 'e' Datu'DI' ney'omI chopong'a'

I love that first clause.  Great.  Maybe "mucheghmoHDI' joH'a' jIchIm"?
Isn't it "why do you call me Naomi"?  You could use qatlh here. I'm not
sure I fully understand that second part.

>1:22 vaj chegh ney'omI 'ej rut'e' mo'abnganbe' tlhejbogh Haw' mo'ab
>taghDI' yobghach tIr be'leHemDaq paw chaH

You have an appositive here, rut mo'abnganbe', but there's support for
those.  Maybe "Hatlh mo'abvo' tlhejbogh" would work better for "who
accompanied her from the fields of Moab"?


All in all, pretty impressive!  Sorry if I was too harsh, and rambling
(this took a long time to write, and I was doing other things at the same
time.

~mark

Back to archive top level