tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 01 21:27:46 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: <Li Nalas>SoQ - additional comments

See? I'm improving. I actually waited for the grammarian(s) to
go first! Just thought I'd add my cha' DeQ.

According to Mark E. Shoulson:

> >7. However, we are Bajorans and I say that we stay and we solve 
> >our own problems together.
> >8. Are you willing to join me?
> 
> >1. Where are you running to?
> >1. nuqDaq Daq SuqetlI'
> 
> Too many Daq's (spoil the qagh).  "nuqDaq" means both "where" and
> "whither", so you should be saying "nuqDaq SuqetlI'?"  As it stands it
> means... I'm not sure, it's kind of confusing.  I don't know what to make
> of the extra "Daq" noun.  The "-lI'" works okay, meaning you're in the
> process of running but you're not there yet.  I'm not sure it's necessary
> though, since they've hardly started running.

While I totally agree, I also wonder if the root meaning of the
original would not be closer to {qatlh SuHaw'?}

> >4. We fought a war to regain our homeland.
> >4. <Cardasian>pu'vo' juHqo'maj wInge'meH veS wISuv
> 
> See above... "<Cardassia>nganpu'vo'" perhaps.  I never imagined "nge'" used
> to mean "take back", but I supose it's okay.  I always say it used as "take
> away" from all parties concerned.
> 
> I think I'd like seeing a "-ta'" or "-pu'" on the "Suv" verb.  "We have
> fought a war", that is.  It's better as a present perfect than a past.
> Hmm.  "veS wISuv" is sort of iffy; it's pretty Englishy to think you can
> have a war as the object of fighting.  Maybe just "maSuv" or "DISuv" (we
> fought them), or "veS wIchenmoH".

While I often promote recasting, I don't see a reason to change
this sentence quite THIS much from the original. The change
feels more like it came from a failure to find the right word.
Why bring the Cardassians into it at all?  How about:

juHqo'maj wISuqqa'meH veSDaq maSuvta'.

> >5. How can you abandon it like, like frightened Cardassian
> >Voles.

> >5. chay' batlhHa' yoHHa' <Cardasian> <vole>mey DaDa
> >juHmaj bolon
> 
> Far too many verbs here.  I see "batlhHa'", "yoHHa'", "Da", and "lon", all
> clamoring to be the main verb of this sentence.  If you mean "batlhHa'" and
> "yoHHa'" to act as adjectives, they should go *after* the noun they modify,
> not before.  Or recast with "-bogh".  "DaDa" means "you(singular) act like
> it/them"; he's talking to plural people.  And again, I can't find which is
> the verb in this sentence.  You need to make subordinate clauses.
> Something like:
> 
> chay' ..... boDa', juHmaj bolonDI'.

My own interpretation of the meaning behind this comes closer
to:

juHmaj bolonchugh vaj pagh quv ghajbogh [Cardassia]ngan
[vol]mey'e' DaDachoH.

> >6. These ships are for our guests who must leave because it
> >is no longer safe for them here.
> >6. mebma' DujmeyvamvaD DInob mejchoHbogh naDev
> >toDchoHlu'mo'
> 
> Your word-order has confused me.  "To our guest's ships we give them"?  You
> mean "we give these ships to our guest(s)", right?  That'd be "mebma'vaD
> Dujmeyvam DInob".
> 
> The second half really loses me.  "someone/something saves here, which
> begins to leave"?  You can't spread out relative clauses with other stuff
> intervening, like you can in English.  Klingon requires its relative
> clauses all to be compacted together.  Split this into two sentences.  Put
> a period after the sentence about giving the ships and then say "naDev
> mejnIS chaH, QobchoHpu'mo' ghu'." (they must leave here, because the
> situation has become dangerous)

Or, it could remain one sentence as:

chaHvaD QobchoHmo' naDev narghmeH chaH Dujmeyvam lo'nIS
mebpu'ma'.

Note that naDev is a noun and can be used as such as well as
its more common use as a locative specifier. "Because this
place becomes dangerous for them, in order that they escape,
our guests must use these ships."

> >7. However, we are Bajorans and I say that we stay and we
> >solve our own problems together.

> >7. 'ach <Bajoran>pu' maH 'ej jatlhbogh maQam 'ej qay'meymaj
> >DItI'mo' matay'
> 
> OK, "<Bajor>ngan maH"... that's cool.  "'ej jatlhbogh maQam"?  Um,
> "jatlhbogh" is either "he/she/it who says (something)" or "something which
> he/she/it says", and likely neither, since you didn't give us either a
> subject *or* an object.  The original has "I say"; what's wrong with
> "jIjatlh"?

Or how about putting {vIjatlh} at the end of the whole thing?

> "Qam" is stand; don't you mean "maratlh"?  You have too many verbs again:
> We stay and we fix our problems we're together.  Maybe "matay'taHvIS" would
> be better, or better still, "majIjtaHvIS".

Ahh, ~mark. Your usual good word choice... My ambition is to
gain your vocabulary skills.

> ~mark

charghwI'

P.S. While I enjoy reading ~mark, I miss Krankor.

Back to archive top level