tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 04 22:51:03 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
No Subject
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 10:47:27 -0400
- In-Reply-To: Bill Willmerdinger
> 's message of Thu, 30 Jun 1994 23:13:00 -0500 <[email protected]>
Subject: boHemngan nongbom
>From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger
> )
>Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 23:13:00 -0500
>I haven't posted much to the list, and I'm way behind on taking David's
>lessons, but I've finished the first version of my pet project: the
>translation of Bohemian Rhapsody into tlhIngan Hol.
>The lyrics came from the sheet music, and if ANYONE can tell me what
>BIS-MIL-LAH means I will be VERY happy. For now, I have left it as it is.
>I'm trying to work out something tlhIngan to put in it's place.
Boy you don't start small! Bohemian Rhapsody barely makes sense in
English; translating it is bound to be a major-league pain. Well, let's
take a look...
>Some cautions. I tried to keep the rhythm and meter of the song, and didn't
>worry overmuch about rhyme. I don't think I was entirely unsuccessful, but I
>did take a few liberties with some words. There are also a few extra aspect
>or qualification suffixes thrown in for aesthetic purposes. I'd prefer to use
> canonical tlhIngan Hol, so any suggestions for changes are welcome. My skin
>isn't that thin. :-) I fully expect to be torn to shreds, this time.
*grin* Lucky for you. I tend not to worry about meter too much, mostly
because I havce my doubts as to whether or not I'm good enough to make it
work out.
>I'll post the full Hol text first, then my translation. So, without further
>ado, "boHemngan nongbom".
Well, for the title, it's nice to indicate transliteration here and there
(many of us like to use *'s around transliterated words), just so people
don't waste time trying to make sense of "boHem". "nong" is given only as
a verb, and verb-noun compounds are not extremely well-attested, and we're
not sure you can freely do that. Just be aware...
>Sogh'a' Qob vestai-qutvaj
>=======================================================================
>boHemngan nongbom (be'jaw'a'vaD)
>teHbej'a' yInvam
>neH teHlaw''a' 'oH
"neH" follows the verb (or noun), unlike other adverbials.
>vIHbogh puHDaq jontaH
You have here "he/she is capturing in moving earth". The song would imply
that it's really "I am caught...", so this should have "jI-", unless you
want to consider it clipped Klingon (note that the English is clipped).
And as to "caught", that's really more like "jonlu'pu'" (someone has
captured him/her). However, the term "caught in a landslide" is an English
idiom in the first place. You're not really "captured" in or by a
landslide, it just means you're suddenly and unexpectedly forced to
experience one. You could have fun with a construction like "pay' jIQom",
doing it in a nicely Klingonic, and non-English, way.
>teHbejghachvo' jInarghlaHbe'
>mInlIj DapoSmoH
It's a command, right? I want you to open your eyes. So it should be
"tIpoSmoH" (plural! eyeS!)
>chalmeyDaq Danej
>'ej Dalegh
Maybe "yIbej" insstead of "Danej". "Watch the skies". Possibly drop the
"-Daq" as well. And again. "yI-" (or "tI-") instead of "Da-". Definitely
"yI-" for the last verb, since It's just "see things in general", not "see
it".
>neH puqloD mIpHa' jIH
Again, "neH" after the noun. "mIpHa'" works for me.
>tuvupnISbe'bej
Excellent.
>jIjatlhtaH: jIpaw ngeD, jItlheD ngeD
You're trying to do sentence-as-subject stuff here. Note that you have two
verbs here, and no obvious way to join them. "I arrive it's easy". I
suppose if you punctuated it differently it would be okay. "I arrive.
It's easy. I leave. It's easy". We've been doing stuff like this with
things like "jIpawDI' ngeD" (when I arrive, it's easy).
>jISey mach, jI'It mach
This works less well. What's small? What would work very nicely is the
adverbial "loQ": "loQ jISey, loQ jI'It".
>nuqDaq ghoStaH SuS
>potlhbe'bej 'oH jIHmeH
>jIHmeH......
jIHmeH? In order that I be (something)? Erk. Should probably be "jIHvaD"
and come at the beginning of the sentence (yes, that screws up the
structure, but that's life).
>SoSoy,
>loD vIHoHta'
>nachDajDaq HIch vIlanta'
>chu'wI' vIyuvta' DaH Heghpu'
Hey, good aspect use! Works fpor me anyway.
>SoSoy,
>neH taghchoHpu' yIn
neH in the wrong place again. Again, good use of "-pu'".
>'ach DaH jIjaHpu'
>'ej Hoch vIwoDpu'
"I've gone and thrown it all away" has nothing to do with going, that's an
English idiom. If you really want to parallel the English construction
(and I don't see much reason to), the right verb for the job is "ruch", I
think.
>SoSoy,
>Ooh ooh ooh ooh,
>qaSaQmoH 'e' jIHechbe'
vIHechbe'. The "'e'" pronoun is an object.
>wa'leS poHvam naDev jIcheghbe'chugh
I suppose "qaStaHvIS wa'leS poHvam".... I dunno, when you need the
qaStaHvIS isn't completely clear.
>bItaH, bItaH
yItaH, or yISIQ even better,. Command, remember?
>jIHmeH potlhbe'bejmo' 'oH
"jIHmeH" doesn't make sense to me; "jIHvaD" perhaps.
>DaH qaS
>pawpu' poHwIj
>pIpwIjDaq QommoHlu'
hey, a word for "spine". Never noticed that. Maybe "Qom pIpwIj" might be
more concise.
>reH 'oy'taH porghwIj
>Qapla', juppu'wI'
Hmmm. I suppose we can get away with "Qapla'" for goodbye, since (a) we
have nothing better and (b) you *do* say you're leaving in the next
sentence (otherwise I'd complain that Qapla' doesn't carry the idea of
parting).
>jItlheDnISchu'
>jIH 'o'Daq ratlhnIS Hoch
"-bej" might be better than "chu-" here. "'o'wIjDaq" is better than "*jIH
'o'Daq"; we don't make possessives with pronouns. Perhaps "jItlheDnISbej /
SatlheDnIS Hoch" or something (okay use of tlheD?)
>'ej vIt vIlaj
vIlajnIS maybe? The "gotta" applies to this clause as well.
>SoSoy,
>Ooh ooh ooh ooh,
>jIHegh vIneHbe'
>not jIboghpu' jIH 'e' rut vIneHbej
No "'e'" with "neH"; you got that right in the first sentence, but not the
second.
>Som DopDaq loDqoq QIb mach vIlegh 'e' vIQub
"I see a little sillhouetto of a man..." Where's the "side of the hull"
coming from? And the "I think"? If you want to express uncertaintuy,
"vIleghlaw'" is probably cleaner. you might consider "loDHey" or
something.
>nuch mIyqu'
>nuch mIyqu'
>chaq vanDango' DanID'a'
>jorbogh cha pu'mey je
>jItaHvIpqu'
>jIH!
Maybe jIHajqu'? This is a poem, so I'll not say you can't use "-vIp" in
first person. Tough to translate "Scaramouche!"
>neH puqloD mIpHa' jIH
>mumuSHa'taH pagh
>neH puqloD mIpHa' ghaH
>qorDu' mIpHa'vo'
"neH" at end again. I suppose the "-vo'" phrase needs to go at the
beginning too, since things that aren't subjects or objects go at the
beginning.
>Sanvamvo' yInDaj botoDlaH'a' vay'?
>naDev ghoS, pa' ghoS
>jImej 'e' bochaw''a'
>BIS-MIL-LAH, ghobe'!
>bImej 'e' wIchaw'be'
>yIchaw'!
>BIS-MIL-LAH, bImej 'e' wIchaw'be'
>yIchaw'!
>BIS-MIL-LAH! bImej 'e' wIchaw'be'.
>yIchaw'!
>bImej 'e' wIchaw'be'!
>yIchaw'!
>bImej 'e wIchaw'be'!
>yIchaw'!
>ghobe' ghobe' ghobe' ghobe'
>ghobe'! ghobe'! ghobe'! ghobe'!
>SoSoywI', SoSoywI'
>jImej 'e' tuchaw''a'
>veqlarghHom ghaj veqlargh jay' 'ej muloS...
>muloS....
>muloS!!!!
>toH! chonaghlaH 'e' DaQub
>'ej mInwIjDaq bIghupHa'!
Hey, "ghupHa'"! That's a nice one. Maybe I'll use that instead of
"SopHa'" in my Jonah.
>chomuSHa'laH 'e' DaQub
>'ej jIHeghmeH chomej!
>toH, be'oy,
>choghonglaHbe' be'oy
Good
>neH jIghoSnIS
>neH naDevvo' jIghoSnIS.
"neH" misplaced.
>potlhlaw' pagh jay'
>luleghlaH vay'
or "net legh". But yours sounds nicer.
>potlhlaw' pagh jay'
>potlhbej pagh jay'
>jIHvaD....
>nuqDaq ghoStaH SuS....
All in all, enjoyable! Qapla'.
~mark