tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 01 14:07:43 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"Qu'Hom" revisions; esp. 4 H.trI'Qal & ~m. (Look out, it's long!)
- From: (Paul Mackie) <[email protected]>
- Subject: "Qu'Hom" revisions; esp. 4 H.trI'Qal & ~m. (Look out, it's long!)
- Date: Sat, 2 Jul 94 16:04:13 CST
This big post (sorry!) discusses suggested gr. alterations to
lutHomwIj wa'DIch: "Qu'Hom"; posted a while ago for the KBLC.
I am greatly indebted to HoD trI'Qal (and ~mark) for taking the
time and care to scrutinise my work. I would certainly welcome
any further comments/criticism, but I don't expect any; you've
done enough for me already! (and we have a new BG).
The post I am sending after this is the revised text
(and translation) of "Qu'Hom" (mk II).
First, regarding pu' :
Thank you both (HoD trI'Qal & ~mark) for your clarifications
on aspect vs. tense. I think I have been able to significantly
cut back on it's incorrect usage here, but I do reckon it's a
little difficult to get used to. When one tries to recount a story
from the third person perspective, they are aware that all the
events in the story have already happened! In the narrative,
one action follows another, etc., but as far as the story-teller
is concerned, the final action was completed even before the first
one is recounted.
OK, perhaps that attitiude is 'ethnocentric'. I guess when
Klingons hear (or read) a story told in that manner, they
naturally infer the 'past tense' view on the part of the story-
teller.
The original story had at least one pu' (or ta') on almost every
line! In order to get used to the proper usage, I have recast them
by thinking about the main activity in each sentence as happening
"approximately now". The very first sentence still has one (pu')
but from your descriptions it *seems* right!
OK, individual sentences:
>> tuHmey QatlhmoHpu' bIH 'ej cha' jajmey 'e' SIQpu' ghaH.
H. t.:
>First of all, the <ghaH> at the end and the <bIH> are a bit superflous,
>but they did help me to keep straight what you were referring to. It took
>me a while to see what you were doing with <'e'>. I *think* what you did
>was okay, so I am going to leave it at that. I'm not sure you can just
>throw <cha' jajmey> in as a time-stamp. I think this is one of those
>debated-things on the list. A good way to get around this is to say
><qaStaHvIS cha' jajmey> "While two days occured".
OK, how about:
tuHmey QatlhmoH bIH 'ej qastaHvIS cha' jajmey SIQ.
********************************************************
>> ghopDapmey yotlh 'eltaHvIS lucholtaH jagh Dujmey.
H. t.:
>I'm not sure I would use -taH on <lucholtaH>. I would have used
>either -qa' or even -lI'. Yes, definitely -lI' (this was one of
>those stylistic commetns I mentioned; grammatically, it was fine)...
Yes, I agree. New text reflects suggestion!
********************************************************
>>QeymoHpu' SomrawDu'Daj.
H. t.:
>the -Daj at the very end of the second line confused me... *whose*
>muscles? Torgh's or his enemy's? I understood it was Torgh's, after
>going on, but this early in the story, I wasn't sure of you were doing a
>switch over to the enemy's point of view, if you know what I mean?
Yep. I don't like it at all now. I believe this is what I wanted:
QeychoH SomrawDu'Daj.
********************************************************
>> cha' ghopDapmey joj DIngchu'pu' torgh Duj.
H.t.:
>In the third line, I stumbled on -chu'. I usually trnaslate it as
>"clearly," as that seems to be the most common usage. for some
>reason, my 'instincts' tell me that this is an incorrect usage of
>the suffix, but I can find no logic to back it up... it certainly
>looks okay to me... Mark? Qanqor?
~mark:
>If the intent is "torgh's ship spun between two asteroids", remember you
>need the "-Daq" suffix on "joj". Just like "under the rock" is "nagh
>bIngDaq", "between two asteroids" (as a prepositional phrase) is "cha'
>ghopDap jojDaq" (plural suffix when there's a number is a little redundant,
>but not wrong).
Yes, for "between two asteroids...", I now have:
cha' ghopDap jojDaq
~mark:
>"DIngchu'" is grammatical, but I'm not sure of the
>meaning. "It spun awfully well"? "It spun excellently"? "It spun alot"
>might go better as "DIngqu'".
Well, I did want to convey the idea of this ship spinning
"perfectly", or neatly between two converging rocks (although
I didn't really bother with the 'converging' bit...), almost as if
it *had* to spin in order to fit through, and therefore requiring
considerable skill on the part of the pilot! (I recall one
sentence from PK: "He aims the photon torpedo *perfectly*.")
Now that you have both made me look at it, it's obvious what I
should have written:
(location) DujDaj DIngchu' torgh.
********************************************************
>> wa' ghopDap HeHDaq paw'pu' wa' thla'wI'Daj.
H. t:
>I would have said <tlha'wI'Daj wa'> for "one of his pursuers"
>although I am not certain that is legal. What you have is fine...
>just be aware that it translates "his one pursuer," which makes the
>last line a bit confusing--I thought there was *only* one pursuer,
>and now here is a second...
~mark:
>Also remember that "tlha'wI'Daj wa'" can also mean "His pursuer
>number 1". The "one of" construction is something that's still
>a little fuzzy, last I heard.
Yeah, I wanted "one of...". 1st line, 2nd paragr. did
have " jagh Dujmey " (although I didn't tell you *how many* ships).
For "second pursuer", I might try change that to "remaining..",
therefore implying that there were only 2 enemy ships.
Regarding "one of...", I thought TKD made the distinction clear
(at least in the context I am using). eg: " wa' DuS ".
At the moment I'm inclined to leave it as follows, but change
"2nd" to "remaining" (just too many damned numbers!) :
wa' ghopDap HeHDaq paw' wa' thla'wI'Daj.
If it is still unpleasant to read, I would probably want to
change it by somehow avoiding, or at least cutting back on
the use of the numbers.
********************************************************
>> loghDaq 'uy' law' DI tIrmey ghomHa'lu'.
H. t.:
> [...]
>Would removing the indefinite subject and saying
> <loghDaq ghomHa' 'uy' law' DI tIrmey> ruin the idea you
>were trying to get across?
Absolutely not. I like that much better, thank you.
********************************************************
>> luSamqa'law'ta' chaH je.
>> jIHDaj poS wovmoHpu' wej pu' qul tIHmey Doq.
>> 'ach Do' DoSchaj lumuppu' be'
H. t.:
>I didn't find anything wrong in the first two lines.
>I think you put an accidental space in the final line:
> <lumuppu' be'> should be <lumuppu'be'>?
2nd line: I have removed -pu' from wovmoH (although I think -ta'
should stay in line above).
3rd line: Accidental space & -pu' removed.
********************************************************
>> " qoHmey jay! " 'e' Qubpu' torgh.
H. t.:
> <jay> needs an ' at the end, in the first line: <qoHmey jay'>.
>Also, the fact that they are fools doesn't change the fact that
>they are capable of speech (as we discover later). Unless you
>are using the "scattered all about" meaning of -mey, you need
>to use -pu': <qoHpu' jay'>.
Yeah, that's clear now. I did have in mind that Torg considered
them pretty stupid & contemptible, & therefore "qoHmey" would be
more insulting somehow, but this was just something he *thought*.
After thinking about it myself, I can see that he probably would
use qohpu' anyway, even if he was addressing them directly.
********************************************************
>> " DaH 'eb cha'DIch luSuqQo' "
H. t.:
>Erg. I personally don't like this use of -Qo'. Grammatically,
>I *believe* it is correct. However, I always felt that -Qo' had a
>connotation of refusal to it. If this is so, then you are saying
>that they are *refusing* to get a second chance.
>This line may also be English-idomatic. I am *not* the best
>person to judge that, however. {{:/
I think I see what you mean. How about if the whole sentence read:
" DaH 'ebvetlh neH luSuq "
********************************************************
>> QumwI'Daq pawpu' ghogh mughpu'
>> " DaH yImev pagh pIQaw'! "
H. t.:
>No problems here.
Actually, I now think it's incorrect! I wanted
"...a translated voice...". My use of mughpu' as an adjective
for ghogh isn't right, is it? How about this:
QumwI'Daq paw ghogh moghlu'pu'bogh
********************************************************
>> Haghpu' torgh.
>> " Su' jang," 'e' De'wI' ra'pu' ghaH.
>> " taQbangwIj Sop! "
H. t.:
>The first line is fine. The second line has a very common mistake in
>it. <Su'>, the exclaimation, is a sentence on it's own right. If you
>want to say "ready to reply," use the Type 2 verb suffixes for that: -rup
>and -beH. I would have said <jIjangrup!> "I am ready to answer!" or even
>Clip it, if you want: <jangrup!>.
>I am not sure if you were using Clipped Klingon in the last line or not.
>If you were no, you need a pI- at the beginning of <Sop>. Otherwise, it
>is fine... other than it may be another idiomatic expression.
All of this was meant to be clipped tlh. I can accept that
"Su'...etc" doesn't look right, but this really is how I want
it to read! I will change the order to " Su'! jang! " to make
it look a little more abrupt, but as for the grammar, I want
this to be his method of addressing his on-board computer.
The initial " Su'! " clicks it into a mode in which it knows
it is being addressed (and not someone else (or himself)), like
"Computer, ...". The next command (clipped) " jang! " is the action
to carry out (from it's database it determines that for the command
" jang! " a sentence will follow which is to be actual message
to reply with!)
The last sentence (also clipped) may well be idiomatic, but I want
to leave it there also! I can imagine this character yelling this
to enemies as if he means it literally!
********************************************************
>> ghopDapmey yotlh veH leghlaHDI' pIvghor qIppu'.
H. t.:
>Okay... I KNOW that "hitting" a device to activate it is idiomatic.
> [...]
>Try looking at the verb <chu'> "to engage/activate (a device)."
>I think it would be a bit more appropriate than <qIp>.
Ya got me! " ... pIvghor chu'. "
********************************************************
>> SIbI' ra'wI'Daj toQDuj chuqDaq ghaHta'.
H. t.:
>I am not certain <chuq> is properly used in the second line.
>It looks funny to me. But that doesn't necessarily mean it
>was improperly used. pabpo'pu'?
~mark:
>The line confuses me. Oh, I see. "suddenly he was in his
>commander's Bird of Prey's range." Toughie. "chuq" used
>this way doesn't sound good to me either. It seems to means
>the abstract "distance", not the area of space associated
>with something. If there were a word for "area nearby" maybe
>...Or avoid the construction altogether and try
>"SIbI' ra'wI'Daj toQDuj Sum"
>(suddenly, he was near his commander's BoP). Work?
I will use that, but by itself it just doesn't convey the whole
concept I wanted. An extra sentence is added to become:
SIbI' ra'wI'Daj toQDuj Sum.
nom torgh Duj Dech SachtaHbogh toQDuj yoD.
How does this read?
********************************************************
>> narghHa'pu' lutlha'pu'bogh novpu'.
>> nom verghpu' 'ej tep ngaSwI'mey woHpu'.
>> ra'wI'Daj pa'Daq nIteb bIH qengpu'.
H. t.:
>The rest of these lines were okay.
I have added an "'ach" to the first line, to make it 'feel'
a little better with the previous sentence. -pu' suffixes removed.
********************************************************
>> torgh bejbe'pu' loD pI' 'ej SoptaH.
>> " yIja'! "
>> " pItlh, joHwI' "
H. t.:
>These were okay, except for my initial confusion over who "he"
>was in the second sentence. Why not make the second sentence
>a -taHvIS construction? Or even a -mo':
><SoptaHmo' loD pI', torgh bejbe'> "Because the fat man was
>continously eating, he didn't watch Torgh"?
I prefer -taHvIS to -mo' in this case. And I have changed the
other verb from "watch" to "pay attention to". How does this read?:
SoptaHvIS loD pI', torgh qImbe'.
********************************************************
>> loD pI'Daq ngaSwI' nobpu' 'ej torpu' torgh.
>> ngaSwI'Daq ghopDaj lan ra'wI' 'ej qagh puS yInbe' lelpu'.
H. t.:
>I would have used -vaD, not -Daq on <loD pI'> (first line).
> -Daq implies motion. Although here there is the "motion"
>of handing the things over, I think the "intended for" meaning
>of -vaD is sightly better. Just my thoughts, though.
>The other line is fine.
I agree; consistent with TKD ad. 6.8. Also, -pu's removed.
But I did change the second line. Please tell if this is better
or worse than what I had:
ngaSwI'Daq ghopDaj lan ra'wI' 'ej yInbe'bogh qagh puS lel.
********************************************************
>> loQ moghlaw' loD pI'.
>> " noghHa'. wej rIntaH Qu'HomlIj. " Sopqa'.
H. t.:
><noghHa'>? That means "unwrithing" or "writhing improperly".
>Again, this may be grammatically incorrect, but I would have
>just used -be'.
Yep. OK to add taH? Becomes: " noghtaHbe'. "
********************************************************
>> ngaSwI'Daq nuDpu' torgh.
>> lugh ra'wI'lIj 'e' leghpu'mo' torgh 'ItmoH.
H. t.:
>Some problems with suffixes. I think you mis-used -Daq in
>that first line again. I know what you are trying to say,
>but I am not sure you can do this. What you seem to need
>is a word for "inside" (the opposite of <Hur>, "outside")
>to put after <ngaSwI'>. I was supprised I couldn't find
>this one in the KD. Lacking "inside", I would just leave
>off the -Daq entirely. After all, the container is already
>open; we have been discussing its contents--why would he be
>examining the *outside* at this point?
Yep.
>In the second line, you pulled a real, honest-to-goodness
>grammatical boo-boo. first of all, it isn't *your* commander
>it is *Torgh's*, so it should be ta'wI'Daj. {{:) (And if it
>*had* been "your", you would have wanted -lI'. Remember,
>first-person possessive suffixes change their form for
>speech-capable beings!). Otherwise, it's okay.
Yep again! Also I've changed 'ItmoH to 'ItchoHmoH.
********************************************************
>> " yImej! " 'e' pay' jachpu' loD pI' .
>> Suppu' torgh.
>>
>> lojmIt SIchlaHpa' torgh jachqa'pu' ra'wI'.
>> " mang! "
I removed the 'e' in the first line. -pu's also.
********************************************************
>> poH yap neH chalvo' ngaSwI' qagh baHpu' tlhaplaHmeH tlhe'pu' torgh.
This is the one sentence I really expected to draw criticism for!
It didn't, however I have substantially changed it anyway.
How does this read?:
qagh ngaSwI' baHlu'pu'bogh, chalvo' luHlaHmeH, poH yap neH, tlhe' torgh.
********************************************************
>> " lenglIjDaq chaq ghungchoH SoH! "
H. t.:
>Everything else was okay, until the last line here. This is
>nother mis-use of -Daq. Let me explain something about -Daq
>(which I probably should have done earlier in this post...):
> -Daq is a locative. This means there must be a sense of physical
>position to it. (or so I understand it). There is nothing to
>be "in" in the journey--not in Hol. I would recast this to say
>"while torgh was traveling", using -taHvIS, and using the verb
>"to travel": <chaq bIlengtaHvIS bIghungchoH SoH!>
>"Perhaps while you were travelling *you* became hungry!"
> Remember: unless you are trying to use Clipped Klingon,
>you must have those verbal prefixes, even if you *are* using
>just a pronoun in the subject spot. This looks really good,
>though! I liked that last line. {{;) {{:)
Damn! My inexperience as an author has resulted in a disastrous
misinterpretation of the tag line! Because you liked it, I'm
almost tempted to leave it as you suggested! However, I intended
a completely different meaning for the sentence. The commander
is giving the box to Torg for the journey he is *about to take*,
he is not accusing him of eating the qagh on the journey he has
just taken! It has been changed to:
" lenglIjvaD yItlhap. chaq bIghungchoH! "
"Take this on your trip. You might become hungry!"
********************************************************
H. t.:
>When I first started translating this, I groaned to see our
>"hero" was named <torgh> (but that is because the majour
>headach in my VR is named torgh... no, no one anyone here
>knows... well, *some* of you might... but I digress...),
>but when I saw the outcome, I was... delighted. Heh. {{;)
Damn again! I hope the 'new' tag doesn't ruin the whole thing now!
Oh well, I'll put more thought into lutHomwIj cha'DIch!
>Most of the corrections I gave you for this are of the
>"It's okay the way you have it, but here is something that
>might make it *better*" variety. You can take them or leave
>them as you choose.
Yes, as you can see, I've taken advantage of most of them,
thank you very much.
>I hope you revise this and send it in again. Or even tell us
>what happens next. ;)
Revision follows next post. I am presently considering
"The Continuing (Mis)Adventures of Torg". Don't expect
it immediately, 'though!
Paul M.....