tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 01 22:47:39 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

<Li Nalas>SoQ - additional comments

>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 2 Aug 94 9:24:01 EDT

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

maj.  :-)

>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'?}

Yes, that's a very good recasting of the idiomatic intent of the English
phrase.  Hee... You know, were I Li Nalas, I'd have phrased it differently:
"Where are you running *from*" (after all, this is Bajor and we're
Bajorans).  'Course, thre's a little debate as to whether the Klingon for
"whence" should be "nuqvo'" or "nuqDaqvo'".  Then again, "nuq bolon" is
even better.

>> >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'.

I *like* the "-qa'",... I think.  Or maybe I like the "Suq".  Maybe both,
but not necessarily.  Lemme explain the problem.  "-qa'" means "resume".
In what sense have we done anything in order to "resume taking back" our
homeland?  Had we been taking it back from someone else by means of tennis
and got interrupted, and had to fight a war in order to be able to start
taking it back again?  Then again, "Suqqa'" works so *well* here.  Maybe
it's okay.  Maybe just "wISuqmeH"... or "wIghajqa'meH"... or
"wIghajchoHmeH"...

"We have fought in a war" works okay; I just don't really see the concept
of "war" as the object of "fight"; that's very English to my ear.  

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

>> >5. chay' batlhHa' yoHHa' <Cardasian> <vole>mey DaDa
>> >juHmaj bolon
>> 
>> 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.

Well, I screwed up, putting an extra ' on "Da".  Hagh qoHpu' neH HeghtaHvIS
SuvwI'pu'.

Yeah.,.. yours works very well.

>> >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."

Yes.  Your use of "naDev" threw me a second, but I used it similarly in my
translation, before I edited it out.  It's quite correct.  You're using
that cataphora which I expect Klingon uses a lot of.  Your sentence is a
little confusing... sounds like something a political speechwriter would
come up with sitting at his desk, not a hero on the fly, but hey.  The
two-sentence version sounds more natural.

>> >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?

Erk.  Should it be "jIjatlh" or "vIjatlh", beginning or end (the position
shouldn't matter).  We know that "jatlh" doesn't use "'e'", but the
examples we have all(?) have indirect objects contracted into the prefixes
(HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'--I told you not to interrupt me, i.e. "don't interrupt
me" I told to you").  What if there isn't one?  Is the sentence now the
object of the verb?  I'm inclined to believe it isn't, since it can follow
the verb or precede it, which is not in the nature of objects.  So I think
it should "jIjatlh", which can come either at the end or where I put it.

>> "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.

choquvbej.  I knew there was a word for "co-operate" (I knew there were
two, in fact, one on each side of the dictionary), but I had to look it up.
Knowing what's there is half the battle.

>> ~mark

>charghwI'

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

Me too.  I hope he's managed to start catching up on us!

~mark

Back to archive top level