tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 06 21:30:18 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

{-moH}

>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:47:35 EST


>On Feb 4,  4:20pm, joy'wI' wrote and charghwI' responds:
>> Subject: {-moH}
>> 
>> How would one say "I caused the officer to kill the prisoner"? Would it
>> be "qama' yaS jIqHoHmoHpu'" or "qama'vaD yaS jIHoHmoHpu'"? Or would I have
>> to reword the senence as "Because of me, the office killed the prisoner",
>> translated as "jIHmo' qama' HoHmoHpu' yaS"?


>Once again, I offer my opinion. ~mark and Krankor are the grammarians,
>and I just like to cast sentences into Klingon, so pardon my exhibiting my
>habit. I see in this example, it would be much less confusing to say: 

>	       qama' HoH yaS 'e' vIqaSmoHta'

>Note that I would probably not use the perfective at all if not to
>indictate clearly that the act was intentional. The time would instead be set
>by context. In this case the perfective (or imperfective) aspect of the
>sentence is less important than the degree of intent.

Yes, this is probably the best casting.  "jIHmo' qama' HoHpu' yaS" works
okay too (no "-moH", since the causality is in the "-mo'"), or "vIraDmo'
qama' HoH yaS" (The officer kills the prisoner because I force him), or
"vIra'mo'" (because I command him), etc.  Don't try to think in Englihs and
ofrce the words to Klingon; think of the concept and how a Klingon would
want to say it.  That is, don't translate so much as restate.

>> Also: how does one say "per" as in "there is one captain per ship"? 

>	       wa' HoD neH ghaj Dujmey Hoch

This works (I believe marqoS put the neH in front; charghwI' is right.  It
goes after), tho it seems to me more likely to be understood that all the
ships collectively have one captain (especially if you conjugate the verb
correctly and use "lughaj").  Truly, though, in most situations even the
powerful ambiguity here would probably be ok.  You could also do "wa' HoD
neH ghaj wa' Duj" (one ship has one captain; this has the ambiguity that
you may not be talking about the ships in general, but that's also a very
minor thing.  Natural languages simply aren't unambiguous).  Maybe
something bizarre like "wa' Duj HoD ghaH wa' loD'e' neH".  I think I like
"wa' HoD neH ghaj wa' Duj" best.

>> "With", as in "The Terran is with the officer"? 

>Awwww. Come on. Try a little harder. {yaS tlhej tera'ngan} There are
>many English uses for "with" that are difficult or awkward to bring over to
>Klingon, but this is not one of them. Most people come up with examples like,
>"He hit me with a disruptor," or "He runs with style and agility," or "I
>agree with you" (which starts a big fight over whether you need to say
>{maQochbe' SoH jIH je} or just {qaQochbe'}).

Basically, no two languages have a perfect correspondence between their
respective prepositions.  "thej" is a fine word to remember when dealing
with "with" of accompaniment in English; "lo'" is good for the instrumental
with, and direct objects too (I'd definitely accept qaQochbe').  "with" for
adverbials?  Recast!  "He runs with speed"?  That's "he runs quickly": "nom
qet".  OK, I got lucky and there was an adverbial for me.  "He runs with
skill/skillfully"?  What's wrong with "qetDI' po'" "When he runs, he is
skillful"?  Works fine for me.  If you're coming at it from the viewpoint
of "How do I say *this word* in this sentence?" you're asking the wrong
question (except maybe if it's some specific noun or verb).  The right
question is "How would I say what this sentence says in Klingon?"

>> And I'm still puzzeled as how one
>> would refer to the answers to {chay'}, {ghorgh}, {qatlh}, and {'ar}, such
>> as in "I do not know how he escaped". 

>	  chay' narghta' ghaH 'e' vISovbe'

That's the current usage, and we have nothing better, so I think it works.

~mark

Back to archive top level