tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 18 13:40:51 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: qaD vIjang: leng'a'

Note to Goran: I'd comment on the Bhagavad first, but I'll wait a week lest
the official grammarians have aught to say.

> [muqaDpu'mo' charghwI', naDev 'oH lut'e' --HoD Qanqor]

I take it you realise that "Here's the story" is an Anglicism, and this
actually says "the story is here". "DaH lutvetlh vIja'" is what I would say.

> Amoukamouki tIn law' joH'a'qoq Hoch tIn puS, 

Are you quite sure Dun or Doj might not be more appropriate here?

> vaj reH pawDI' jaj javmaH loS'uy' cha'vatlh chorgh "jaj'e'"

You've used "paw" for temporals before, and it still worries me. "qaS" is
the obvious verb to use.

> wIlop.  "jaj'e'" lopmeH Soch jaj poQlu':  loprupchoHmeH wej,
> "jaj'e'", 'ej wanI''a'vam Dojqu'vo' ghIrmeH wej.

'ut is far better than poQlu', which introduces unnecessary conceptual
complexity. loprupchoH is somewhat opaque for (presumably) "to prepare to
celebrate"; "lop 'e' qeqmeH" is better. "To descend from this tired great
event"? Que? I take it this is one of your strange Terran idioms? ("Come
down?") What about "leSmeH", or "'uHmeH", or "HoSqa'meH"? Despite my 'poetic'
translation of "weary nights" in Shakespeare Sonnet LXI, a tiring event is 
not a "wanI' Doy'", but a "Doy'moHbogh wanI'".

> DI"sacrifice"-- "paper towel" rur bIH chIch net jech.  rInDI'

"One intentionally disguised the fact that they resembled paper towels".
Not quite what you meant, which was: "chIch, Say'moHbogh navmey rurmeH, bIH

> BrandeisDaq DISmaj wa'DIch, "altar"maj'e' wI"sacrifice"pu' ("window"

Didn't you sacrifice scroll*s*? Then DInobpu'.

> jenvo' wIchaghta').  [NOTE:  Boy, Klingon sure doesn't have the
> vocabulary to talk about Amoukamoukian ritual items!]
ngeb. "altar" --- lalDan nob yaH. sacrifice (n) --- lalDan nob; meQbogh nob.
glass bowl --- *SIlIqon* HIvje''a'. sacred scroll --- qatbogh ghItlh quv.
sacrifice (v) --- lalDanvaD nob. paper towel --- Say'moHbogh nav. window
(as I translated it in _Much Ado_) --- lojmItHom.

> "altar" chu' taghmeH 'utbej tay'a'.  

My understanding of the TKD entries, that subsequent definitions illuminate
previous, and that thus "tagh" means "initiate" *as in* "begin a process"
is at variance with yours. I would say Sugh, but of course that wasn't
intended for inanimates either.

> jajlo' mevlaHbe' tay; "The Priests Who Bring The New Day"
> DIghomnISbej.  (jaj chu' luqem lo'taHvIS "truck"mey-- ghaytan
> boleghpu' 'ach "milk truck" "garbage truck" joq bIH 'e' boHar.
> SuQagh.  "The Priests Who Bring The New Day" chaHbej)

trucks *are* tepqengwI'mey. I see no reason not to translate TPWBTND as
jaj chu' luqembogh lalDanyaSpu'.

> (pujmo' jay'-- 'ach jISaHbe'; Nancy DoHDI' Rob ghaH vItIvghach law'
> law' tay'DI' chaH vItIvghach law' puS.  

I take it you're trying to say "When R is away from N, I enjoy him more than
when they're together"? The double law', the (forbidden!) ghah + noun
construct, and other things make this very hard to understand. I'd say:
"N DoHtaHvIS R, ghaH vItIv law', tay'taHvIS chaH, ghaH vItIv puS". I'd fain
a more comprehensible than a more logical sentence (it isn't Rob who's more,
but your enjoyment of his.)

> vaj "Dunkin Donuts"Daq maghoS 'e' wIwuq.  mamejpa', nutlhej neH'a'
> Nancy 'e' wIghojmeH, 

In many languages, you learn bodies of knowledge, but you only SovchoH
facts. It would be best to interpret Klingon ghoj similarly.

> mamejta'.  DujwIjDaq maghoStaHvIS, jupma' Erik ("poker" lutwIjvo'
> Erik'e') 

I am very suspicious of verbless Klingon sentences. I'd say P. lutwIj E. ghaH.

The "vaj malengtaH"'s are effective.

> toH, malengtaH 'ej matIvtaH.  qaSpu'DI' rep puS He rarwI' ("bridge")

Kudos for a translation of the word much better than those I've attempted.

> DujDaq macheghDI' leSmeH DaqDaq lengwI'pu'vaD "map" tIn

map --- Daqmem. The pictorial nature of a map is underemphasised, though,
and picture/image is one of the more glaring omissions in the lexicon.

> tIqghach javmaH jav vatlhvI' wIlengpu'!  numer De'vam! toH, John
> Lipinski jup'e' ponglu'bogh wIghaj, 

No. Klingon does not, to our knowledge, have double object constructions,
so this can only mean "we have J.L.'s friend who is named." You'd need
to say something like "pa' jup wIghaj. J.L. 'oH pongDaj/ ghaHvaD "J.L."

> AdamsDaq yIntaH qorDu'Daj-- "state" Dop HopDaq-- 'ej "weekend"vetlh

state --- Sep. weekend --- HoghHeH, or Hogh leSpoH.

> malengtaH.  DaH Sunday povna' 'oH.

here and elsewhere you use the existential "it". tu'lu', or better, qaS
are more appropriate.

> North AdamsDaq lengna' nI' law' lengHey wIpIHpu'bogh nI' puS.  


> 'IHtaH Hatlh 'ej DuntaH jaj 'aj QaQtaH Hoch.  

>Nancy rI' 'e' nIDmeH Rob rut mamev, 'ach not tu'laHbe'.  

We often ceased? Anglicism. As far as we know in canon, you have to stop
doing *something*; I initially assumed you were preventing R from calling
N. "'e' nIDmeH R, maleng rut 'e' mamev."

> yIH ghajbe'bogh ram rur Nancy ghajbe'bogh jaj.  

Snakes alive! Can I quote you on this one? ;)

> wIQub, rI'Se' paq wISuqlaH.  "Lipinski" 'ar ngaSlaH?

I'm not sure rhetorical questions work in Klingon.

> qarbej, wej "Lipinski" ngaS North AdamsvaD rI'Se' paq.  

We have no evidence that indirect object-marked nouns can qualify noun
phrases. The only consruction we can be sure is grammatical is "N.A. rI'Se'

> KingDaq maghoS.  pawDI' Soj ngevbogh be''e' wIghom, 

mapawDI'? The waitress could be both met and arriving, but that's an odd

> 'ej tlhob Rob

Rob requested "Do you know...". You know by now how I read TKD: tlhob =
"ask" *as in* "request", and I would here use "yu'".

> wItlho', Soj je' vay', 'ej Lippy wISuchmeH mamej.

The purchaser of the food is as elusively anonymous as the "beloved disciple"
in the Gospel according to John. Is this a hint of authorship? ;)

> "cousins" chaH.  vaj He chu' nuja' 'ej Lipinski lugh juH wISammeH
> majaHqa.

Proechel's kin terms are as good as any (at least, they've yet to be condemned
in HolQeD's pages): loDnI''a'.

> machechchoHlaw'.  "Lippy vengvamDaq yInbogh Hoch ponglu'law'!" wIwuq

Again, your double objects get you in strife: "One calls everyone living in
Lippy's town." This should be "vengvamDaq yInbogh HochvaD "Lippy" ponglu'law'"

> 'ej reH yItwI' wIjuStaHvIS Dujvo' "Lippy!  Hey, Lippy!" wIjach.

Hey? 'eH!

> tu'lu'!"-- 'ej vIjatlhDI', East Street East Road je rar DaqDaq
> mapaw!  


> vIneH.  He''a' 'oH.  Qaplaw'bogh He' vItu' 'ej maghoS.

He'a'; He.

> 'ej "sign" tIn wIlegh:  "Welcome to Connecticut"

sign --- maqwI'; Degh'a'.

> chImbej Connecticut yoS maHbogh; 

You were all a distrct of Connecticut? We have established that indirect
objects are inaccessible to relativisation in Klingon; the best you can
do is make the district a direct object; leng may do.

> 'ej He mI'mey DIlo' chIjmeH 'e' wInID.  'ej machIllaw'taHvIS tlhIch
> wIlarghchoH.

machIllaw' --- you were lost? Canonically confirmed Bad Anglicism. See
how Okrand translates "I am lost". As it stands, you were all losing things
left right and centre. I'd be losing it too, in that situation, but that's
not how "I am lost" is translated.

> vaj poS pagh tI'wI'pu'.

It's not the repairers that are open, but their shops. poS pagh tI'wI' yaH,
or Qap pagh tI'wI'.

> 'ej DaH Soch rep ramDaq 'oH.  

And now it was... (pauses to translate word-for-word) 7, in the evening. Oh 
Dear. No. ramDaq qualifies the verb, *not* (as you assumed) the hour. Once 
again, only a noun-noun construction will work: DaH qaS ram rep Soch".

> Dunkin Donuts jaHmeH wa'maH cha' rep!  

Another risky verbless sentence, translatable only because I happen to
speak English. Put in "'utpu'".

> "anniversery"chaj 'oHpu' jajvetlh!  qaStaHvIS wa' DIS tay' chaH!

anniversary --- tlhogh qoS (at least, I see noone stopping me from extending
tlhogh to de facto relationships).

I feel exhausted after all that! Quite a saga indeed. Remind me never to
introduce any of my girlfriends to you... ;)


Back to archive top level