tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 12 11:15:43 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chu'wi' jIH
- From: d'Armond Speers <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: chu'wi' jIH
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 23:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
Randallvo':
> nuqneH!
nuqneH, and welcome! naDev bIQuch 'e' vItul.
> I'm new to this list and this is my first stab at writing something in
> {tlhIngan Hol}. This may be a little too ambitious for a newby, but as
> they say: No guts, no glory.
bISuvbe'chugh, vaj batlh bIHeghlaHbe!
> cheghbe'bogh poHDaq yIQongtaHbe' 'a yIQamchoH
> 'ej jaj tlhIv yInaDHa', ghop HoS yIlo'taHvIS.
If you want {poH} to be the head of the relative clause
{cheghbe'bogh}, then it can't have the {-Daq} suffix on it. Locatives
are not subjects or objects (TKD 3.3.5).
Boy, that first sentence sure is a whopper. The problem in the
translation is the verb "sleep." In English, you're using a verb plus
a particle to construct a complex meaning, "sleep away," which means
more than the meanings of the two words themselves. {Qong} just
doesn't carry that meaning. You need to play with it more, first by
exploring what the original English means. Something like, {poH nI'
yIQongbe'}.
The rest, I find no fault with, yet I am compelled to make a
suggestion. There needs to be more of a connection between your last
two sentences, {jaj tlhIv yInaDHa'} and {ghop HoS yIlo'taHvIS}. As
it stands, they just follow each other, and it's not clear your using
the {ghop HoS} for the purpose of "discommending the insubordinate
day." (Nice use of vocabulary!!). Thus, you might add {-meH}: {jaj
tlhIv yInaDHa'meH}.
> In case that came out as total gibberish, what I'm trying to say is:
> "Sleep not away the unreturning time,
> but arise and reproach the insolent daylight with a steady hand."
Not total gibberish, as it turns out. One grammatical point, one
stylistic one. I'd say, excellent for your first post! (Now, why
don't you tell us about yourself?) {{:)
> I suppose I need a cool Klingon handle. My name is Randall which means
> "shield-wolf", so maybe... yoDtargh. A targh is a vaguely wolf-like
> critter, isn't it?
Not all names have to mean something (guess I'm sounding
hypocrytical?) If you're happy with the name yoDtargh, cool.
> yoDtargh
--Holtej, Beginner's Grammarian