tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 05 01:39:47 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: jIbuDlaHbe'bej






BEGINNER


Do'valvo':


>jIbuDlaHbe'bej
>paq vIghItlh jarvam (March) 'e' vIrIn
>vIrInDI', poH vIghaj
>tugh Savang 'e' vItul
>jabbI'IDraj vIlaD, 'ach jabbI'ID law' vImughbe'
>vIlHem-tel vImugh je' vItIv
>tlhIngan pong vIneH 'e' vIwuq
>pongvaD <Do'val> vIwIv

majQa'!
<Do'val> vIparHa', 'ach vay' Hech <Do'val> DaneHpu''a'?
cha' wotmeyvo' chenmo' <Do'val>, pagh Hechlaw'.
'ach vay' HechnISqu'be' pong.
pagh Hech je <trI'Qal>.
<Do'val> qapongnIS 'e' vIqaw 'e' vInID.

Aw, Matt.... you usually do so well!
Your first error involved <rIn>.  There was a post on this by someone else 
(chaq HoD Qanqor?)... <rIn> means "to BE finished" [emphasis added], so to 
make it mean "to finish", you need to use -moH.  Everywhere you used <rIn> in 
here, it seems to need a -moH.  Take a look at that, and see if that makes 
sense.  I am not sure <vang> is the right word for the fourth line.  What you 
have is "I hope that I will take action all of you soon."  My typo-insticts 
are telling me you really meant <jang> there, or possibly a different prefix 
on the verb (just plain jI-, perhaps?).  However, my instincts have been wrong 
before...

In the third-to-last line, you transliterate "William Tell."  That's still a 
no-no.  I started looking this one up until I chanced to say it out loud while 
speaking to myself.  *please* don't transliterate... (or if you really must, 
put *'s around it, so we know it is one?)

Finally, what is the <je'> doing in that same line?  It looks like a typo for 
<'ej>...

A few more detailed comments.  These may be bordering onto stylistic, but...

In the second line, I would have addeda -nIS ("to need") on <rInmoH> to add 
your sense of "must."  I might have even made it -nISqu'.  I also would have 
had -lI' ("in the process of") on <vImugh> in the third-to-last line, if I was 
currently reading it.  These ideas are just based on what you sent to me as 
your translations; make of them what you will.



>I don't really like the way line three is worded, but I couldn't think of a 
>way around it.  I realize that possession of time is not correct, but but 
>how should one express that concept.

It made perfect sense to me, nut as someone mentioned, the possesion of time 
may very well be an American-thing.  What you have is grammatically correct, 
though. {{:)


>I also do not like the last line.  I think the way I wrote it is wrong, 
>that I might use apposition or something to express the relationship 
>between name and Do'val.


This is a tough one.  I once used -vaD to get around this, but someone asked 
my via private mail if I was mis-using the indirect object construction.  
After consulting with an English pofessor, I found this was so.  But I still 
think the Klingon translatio was valid.  Weird, huh?  As far as I am 
concerned, there is nothing wrong with what you have here (which is really 
similar to what I did).  This is another one of those we-are-still-looking-for-
canonical-information-on-this-type things. {{:(


Translations:
------------

Great!
I like the name "Do'val," but did you want it to mean something?
It doesn't seem to mean anything, as it is made of two verbs.
But a name doesn't have to have a meaning.
"trI'Qal" also has no meaning.
I will try to remember to call you Do'val.



--HoD trI'Qal







Back to archive top level