tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 05 01:39:47 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: jIbuDlaHbe'bej
- From: trI'Qal <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: jIbuDlaHbe'bej
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 1994 13:36:24 -0400 (EDT)
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