tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 10 07:59:11 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Qubghach law'



** BEGINNER **


qorvo':


>naDev tamqu'
>"baH" 'oH qon'a' tlhIngan QoQ?


jIHagh!
tlhIngan QoQ qonlaw' "Bach", qar'a'?


>ghojghach let tlhIngan Hol.
>qaDmey vIbangba'.
>QaghwIjmey boSIQruptaH'a'?

lu'!
DalughmoHlu'DI' bIQaghDI' bIghojqu'!
vaj QaghHeylIj vIcherghqangbej!  {{:)


Okay, let's take a look at said errors. {{:)
The first line looked okay at first glance, then I realized this is one of 
those "Impersonal Its".  "It is silent here."  What is silent?  There isn't 
any answer.  This is one of those grammatical debates that crops up once in a 
while.  We don't know if Klingon allows this use of "it" like English does.  I 
would have avoided the issue by putting something definite as the subject, 
probably <naDev>:

	tamqu' naDev
	"Here is silent."

Not quite right in the English, but since in Klingon, "here" is a noun, and 
can be used like any other noun, (I think this came up in another debate?) 
this could be okay.  Or you could be even more specific:

	tamqu' "list"
	"The list is silent."

Can't argue with the grammar on that.  The other problem was the use of -qu' 
to mean "too."  If you re-read the section on -qu' (pages 48-49), you will see 
that it means nothing of the sort.  I understood what you meant (without 
looking) just from the context, so in this kind of situation, it is probably 
okay.  The only other alternative I can offer you is some sort of law'/puS 
construction, such as this:

	"list" tam law' vay' vIcherghlaHbogh tam puS
	"The list is more silent than anything which I can tolerate."

Not as simple as the orignal, but certainly clearer.

You second line had me stumped, until I saw the translation you provided.  
What you actually said was something like "Does Klingon music compose it of 
Bach?"  Remember, <qon> means "to compose," not "to be composed" (unless, of 
course, I mis-copied the words from HolQeD into my dictionary wrong, but I 
doubt that).  If you want to imply that Bach composed the music, you have to 
have Bach as the subject (end of the sentence) and the music as the object 
(beginning of the sentence):

	tlhIngan QoQ qon'a' "Bach"?

I have no idea why you felt the need to put <'oH> in there?

In the first sentence of your next section, you used -ghach to try to get an 
infinitive ("to <verb>") form of <ghoj>, "to learn."  This doesn't work.  The 
suffix -ghach turns the verb it is attached to into a noun, so <ghojghach> 
would mean something like "learning," in the sense of "education" (ie, not a 
verb-form anymore).  This is one of those times where you want to sit down and 
thin "what am I really trying to say here?" and try to re-phrase your thoughts 
a bit.  What you are really saying is something more like: "When someone is 
learning it, Klingon is difficult." Or: "Klingon is a difficult language."  
both of these sentences can be translated easily:

	ghojlI'DI' vay', Qatlh tlhIngan Hol.
	Hol Qatlhqu' 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e'.

I changed <let> ("to be hard") to <Qatlh>, because the KD specifically says 
that it means to be hard in the sense of a rock.  When you say Klingon is 
hard, you are saying is is difficult.  This has been ebated up and down on the 
list.  Normally, I would let something like this slide (if you pardon my pun 
:) ), but in this case, a more sepcific definition was actually given.  Now, 
although Klingon *sounds* pretty "hard" to terran ears, it really isn't "hard" 
in the sense of a rock. {{:)  <Qatlh> is a better choice.

Your secon-to-last sentence was very nice... except that <bang> is not a verb.  
The KD specifically says this is a *noun*.  Several different ways to express 
the verb "love" have been offered in the past.  I generally use <muSHa'> 
(reversed "hate"), but you could use <parHa'qu'> (emphasized "like") or even 
<maS> ("to prefer").  Any of these would fit right where you have <bang> in 
your original.  Other than that, this sentence is fine.

I applaud your final sentence!  Although your first couple were a bit off, for 
one reason or another, your last one came out just fine!  maj!


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

*laughs*
It really seems like Bach composed it, doesn't it?

Of course!
When you are corrected when you make mistakes, you *learn*!
So I am definitely willing to tolerate your errors. :)


--HoD trI'Qal

Back to archive top level