tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 19 07:25:48 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
My First Paragraph
>From: [email protected]
>Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 01:15:44 -0500 (CDT)
>Greetings. Submitted for your approval...a short (and SIMPLE) tlhIngan passage
>for your apprasal and enjoyment. Comments, anyone? :
OK, I'll comment.
>nuqneH. DaH tlhInganpu' puS mu'meyvaD vIjatlh vIneH.
"Hello. Now I want to say a few klingons to words"
I think you meant "I want to say a few words to (the) Klingons", right?
Your word-order is a little off. Anything that's not a subject or object
comes first, according to TKD 6.1. So the "-vaD" suffixed indirect object
should be first (after DaH). If I understand you correctly, perhaps "DaH
tlhInganpu'vaD mu'mey puS vIjatlh vIneH" would work. Good use of
sentence-as-object, with no "'e'" since it's "neH". That's right. Note
that "puS", used as an adjective, follows what it modifies.
> tIn HoS chaH je; val 'ach chaH je.
"They(beings) are great power(???) too; clever but [are] they also."
I think somewhere along the line you misread your dictionary. "'ach" is a
conjunction, meaning "however". I can't see how it would come after the
verb "val". Who is "chaH"? That's a pronoun meaning "they", used only for
language-using beings, not things. I'm not sure of the first sentence,
since you either have two verbs followed by a pronoun (possibly used as a
verb), or a verb, a noun, and a pronoun (depending on whether HoS is a verb
or a noun). The latter case would make sense if you had a common noun and
not a pronoun; then it would be a noun-noun construction (though likely the
wrong way 'round. "HoS yaS" as a noun-noun construction means "the power's
officer", not "the officer's power".) Did you mean "Their power is great"?
Maybe "tIn HoSchaj".
> DIvI' luSuvpu' tlhInganpu' SochmaH DISmey, DaH boq lughaj 'ach.
"Klingons fought Starfleet 70 years, now they have an alliance however."
Hmmm.... For some reason I don't like the use of "'ach" at the end of the
sentence, though it works in the English. I think "'ach" is really a
conjunction, and should come between the sentences it joins (remember!
*noun* conjunctions follow what the join, sentence/verb conjunctions come
in between). Also, the time-clause, being either subject or object, should
come first. I agree, though, that it needs no suffix; it acts as a time
adverbial.
> ghorqon vummo' qaSpu'. Heghpu', veS qaHpu' mev 'ach.
"Because of Gorkon's work it occurred. He(?) died, he stopped the war-sirs
however"
On a pickayune stylistic point, I'd probably not use "-pu'" if you mean the
alliance occurred, since "-pu'" is a perfective, meaning that it's no
longer happening, but the alliance is still going on. But that's a minor
point. "veS qaHpu'"? I assume you mean the military folks trying to
prevent the alliance. "qaH" sounds to me more like a term of address;
maybe "yaS" would be better. I might use "lujmoH", since "mev" means more
like "to cease" than "to prevent from reaching the goal".
>In the course of writing this one simple paragraph, a thoussand questions poppe
>dinto my mind. One of the most pressing seemed to be an adequate way of
>translating the concept of "with" into tlhIngan. How would one render this:
> "I went with her." "I will die with you." "I agree with you."
These questions have come up again and again in this list. There are more
than one answer. You have to break out of English thinking here. "I went
with her" could be translated as "majaHpu' ghaH jIH je" or "ghaH
vItlhejtaHvIS majaH", similar constructs work for "I will die with you", or
maybe "matay'taHvIS [SoH jIH je] maHegh/jIHegh". For "I agree with you"
I'd go with the recent discussion and accept "qaQochbe'"; the "object" of a
Klingon sentence isn't so rigidly cast as that of an English sentence.
> Please feel free to mock and ridicule my passage-- as long as it's done
>CONSTRUCTIVELY!!! =)
I hope you found this constructive...
~mark