tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 23 06:04:45 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Another saying
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Another saying
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 14:50:01 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Margaret Kipp" at Aug 22, 94 4:55 pm
According to Margaret Kipp:
>
> I found this in _The Final Reflection_ by John M. Ford and tried to
> translate it.
>
> You are not ready to count your enemy's losses until you have learned to
> count your own. And remember that some enemies will never have learned to
> count.
>
> jaghlI'chIlghachmey Datoghrupbe' chIlghachmeylI' DatoghlaHpu'pa'.
> chIlghachmeychaj toghqangtaHbe'bogh jaghpu'law' yIqaw.
I'd be less attached to the word "loss" (assuming that your
first word is really TWO words missing a space). It seems such
a HUMAN euphamism. I'd replace it with the more common term
{lommey}. Also, (just an opinion here) I see the verbs a little
differently:
lommeylIj Datoghta'be'chugh vaj jaghlI' lommey Datoghrupbe'.
not lommeychaj togh jaghpu' puS 'e' yIqaw je.
> And how about this phrase for 'How do you say _(insert word)_ in Klingon?'
>
> chay' _____ Dajatlh tlhIngan Hol DajatlhtaHvIs
Pretty good, though it might seem more direct to say:
______ chay' jatlh tlhInganpu'?
The placement of {chay'} might be controversial here. I
personally would place it at the beginning of the whole
sentence if you were asking for the Klingon equivalent of a
single word, since that word is then the object of the verb
{jatlh} and usually comes before an adverbial. Meanwhile, if we
are translating an entire sentence, then I hold that a sentence
as object construction is easier to decypher if the adverbial
(which is the grammatical role of the question word {chay'}) is
placed closer to its own verb so it is not mistakenly applied
to the verb within the object sentence. Normally, I'd waffle
over whether such an adverbial would appear before or after the
{'e'} pronoun, but {jatlh} doesn't NEED {'e'} so the issue can
be avoided.
What think others?
> Feel free to shred my new sig too. <g>
>
>
> --
> Margaret Kipp [email protected]
> Transportation chief USS Galaxy
> If you do not wish a thing heard; do not say it.
> Doch Qoylu' DaneHbe'chugh yIjatlhQo'
>
>
Sounds fine. I prefer to include the implied {vaj} but many on
this list disagree. Some might quibble over the use of {Doch}
which might be idiomatic to English, in that for all we know,
{Doch} is never applied to something so abstract as this, but I
can deal with it. {Doch} may well only apply to items that
exhibit mass. To avoid such controversy, you might use a word
like {joS}. It seems more appropriate than {qech}.
charghwI'