tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 15 06:44:56 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: chu'wi' jIH



Well, time to correct the correcters.

First some quickies:

Someone said something about not using batlh as a noun, claiming that
quv needs to be used instead.  While batlh is definitely an adverbial
for "honorably", it must be pointed out that it has a perfectly legal
listing as a noun.  batlh was a noun well before quv even existed.

Regarding the whole "you yourself must die" thing (or whatever it
exactly was), someone suggested bIHeghnIS SoH'e' (again, or whatever), the
idea being that the emphasis would give the concept and feel expressed by
the English "yourself".  While I heartily and fully agree with this
sentiment, it does bear pointing out that you are using *maximum* emphasis
here, which I dont' know that I would resort to.  Remember, the mere
*presence* of a pronoun with a verb with an unambiguous prefix suggests
emphasis.  That is, just choosing to say [bIHeghnIS SoH] (happy,
quote-haters? {{:-) instead of [bIHeghnIS] provides emphasis, of a
strength that I would consider equivalent to that provided by the English
"yourself".

Oh, and regarding the whole thing about using an imperative for advice:
while I completely agree that an imperative can be used for such, if one
feels it is too strong, then one way out would be to just use a
declarative -nIS sentence.  That is, instead of [Ha'DIbaH neH yISop], you
could do [Ha'DIbaH neH DaSopnIS]

Ok, so much for appetizers, now on to the main course.  Sorry to have to
do it, but I have to overrule the BG.

>Randallvo':
>
>> nuqneH!
>
>nuqneH, and welcome!  naDev bIQuch 'e' vItul.

'e' wItul Hoch  {{:-)

>> 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!

teHqu'.  nIDvIp nuch.  nIDQo' qoH.  'ach nIDta' QapwI' Hoch.

(ghojwI'vaD ghojmoHwI'vaD je teHbej paQDI'norghvam {{;-)

>> 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).

Beg to differ, jupwI', beg to differ.

A -bogh phrase is a noun phrase.  It is true that here, the poH is acting
as the subject of chegh, but the whole phrase is acting as the locative
for the whole sentence, specifically for the main verb Qong.  Now, I
suppose that one might take exception with -Daq being used somewhat
metephorically, but I'm lenient on that and, in any case, that is not the
issue.  I know I talked about this in one of my HolQeD columns, so you
might wanna refer there for more detail, but, in a nutshell, if:

yeqQo'bogh yuQvetlh     ==  that planet that refuses to cooperate

then I can certainly say:

yeqQo'bogh yuQvetlhvo' ghoS Duy''a'qoq chu'

    "The new *ambassador* <spit> comes from that planet that won't
        cooperate"


Some more examples:

yaS qIppu'bogh HoDvaD tajvam yInob

    "Give this knife to the captain who hit the officer."

yaSvaD qIppu'bogh HoD tajvam yInob

    "Give this knife to the officer whom the captain hit."

juHDaq chenmoHpu'bogh Jack jIyIn

    "I live in the house that Jack built."


>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'}.

tsk, tsk, the teacher replicates the error of the student.  -Qo', my
friends, -Qo'.  You can't use -be' on an imperative.  It has to be
yIQongQo' (or closer to the original, which I prefered, yIQongtaHQo')

By the way, if I may be permitted to take my own poetic attempt, gleaning
meaning from the Klingon attempt (since I don't have the intended English
in front of me):

narghlI'taHvIS cheghQo'bogh poH yIQongtaHQo'

Note the quite intentional personification of time as an escaping prisoner
while the guard is asleep ("jang 'avwI' <jIDoy'be'.>" {{;-)  Here we
sidestep the thorny "away" problem by simply picking a slightly more
Klingon metephor.

>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}.

You lost me here.  Do not see any "last two sentences".  I see a sentence
and a subordinate clause.

'ej jaj tlhIv yInaDHa' ghop HoS yIlo'taHvIS

    "and discommend the insubordinate day [while] using a strong hand"

or more smoothly

    "and discommend the insubordinate day with a strong hand"

In short, it looks perfectly fine to me, I don't see the problem.

>> 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."

Oh, ok, there's the intended English!  Well, the original-attempt Klingon
matches *very* well with this, with only one thing that *I*'d pick on. The
concept of "daylight" is completely lost.  In particular, jaj means a full
24-hour day, not the part when the sun is up.  That is, it is "day" as
opposed to "week", not "day" as opposed to "night".  This is a fact which
is often overlooked by even experienced Klingonists, myself included. The
first step we'd need to take to remedy this would be to use [pem] instead
of [jaj].  Then, as one's style suits, one might or might not go so far as
to work in [wov] somehow (I probably would not choose to).

>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 quite agree, extremely fine for a first post!


>> yoDtargh
>
>--Holtej, Beginner's Grammarian

--Qanqor, List Grammarian



Back to archive top level