tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 19 07:05:45 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KBLC- jIbeplaw



*** BEGINNER ***


qorvo':


>=> Subject: Re: KBLC-  jIbeplaw
>
>=> mamoSbej!  mughbejghach bIneHQo'.  mughbejghach jIneH.  mamoSchuqbej!
>
>	ghobe', mamugh wImughbe'.

This says nothing like what you intended.  I reads soemthing like "No, we 
translate we don't translate it."  I think you got the wrong verb in there 
somehow.  I think what you wanted to say from your intended translation was 
<ghobe', mamoSbe'>.  I am not certain how you came up with this line.


>	mu'tlheghmeylIj bImugh vIlegh, jIleghQo'bogh.


I begin to see how you are thinking.  You are getting your word-order a bit 
confused.  First of all, "which I don't want to see", which you translated as 
<jIleghQo'bogh>, is in the wrong place.  We know from the section on realtive 
clauses (pages 63-64) that the relative-clause phrase must come either right 
before or right after the noun which it modifies.  So ask yourself, "What 
don't I want to see?"  The answer is "your sentences", <mu'thleghmeylIj>, so 
this has to come either right before, or right after that word.  To determine 
which way it goes, we have to know *how* it modifies "your sentences".  To do 
that, look at the sentence as if it were not a relative clause at all.  "I 
don't see your sentences"  <mu'tlheghmeylIj vIleghQo'>.  That is exactly how 
it should appear in the relative-clause.  Notice the change from jI- to vI- at 
the beginning of the verb as well...  That also needs to remain in the Klingon 
version of the sentence.

Now what you actually have is "I refuse to see your sentences", which is fine 
for your intended meaning.  Be careful when you put -Qo' on the end of a verb.  
Unless you WANT it to mean "refuse", you probably want -be', which means 
"not".  In this case, It is a very nice way to say "I don't want to see your 
sentences"  (DaH QaghmeywIj vIlughmoHlI''a', Qanqoroy ~markoy je?  {{:( )  Now 
let's see what your sentence would look like, with just these corrections:

	mu'tlheghmeylIj vIleghQo'bogh bImugh vIlegh.

This is starting to look better.  You are seem to be trying to make <bImugh> a 
sentence-as-object of <vIlegh>.  You remembered to use the right prefix on 
<legh>, which is good, but you forgot to include the ponoun <'e'> between the 
two sentences.  You HAVE to have <'e'> in there, unless it is a verb of 
speaking or the verb <neH>, "to want".  Look on pages 65-67, especially at the 
second example from the top of the page on p. 66.  It is essentially the same 
thing as what you are attempting to do here, only it has a different verb for 
the object sentence.  (If you don't have a Klingon Dictionary, qor, let me 
know, and I will try to be more detailed in my explaintions for you.  I know 
some people don't... but it is really, really, recommended that you get one. 
{{:) )  Now your sentence has become:

	mu'tlheghmeylIj vIleghQo'bogh bImugh 'e' vIlegh

There is one final error.  You have used the wrong prefix on the verb <mugh>.  
<mugh> has an object, <mu'tlheghmeylIj>, so that has to be reflected in the 
prefix, which should be Da- instead of bI-:

	mu'tlheghmeylIj vIleghQo'bogh Damugh 'e' vIlegh
	"I see that you translate your sentences, which I refuse to see"

You could have nominalized <mugh> (which I think you intended to do?) by using 
-ghach, and not had to use the sentence-as-object structure, but in that case, 
you don't want the verb prefix on the verb at all.  Then you have a noun-noun 
construction as well, and your relative clause would have been moved to after 
the entire noun-noun construction:

	mu'tlheghmeylIj mughghach vIleghQo'bogh vIlegh
	"I see the translation of your sentences, which I refuse to see"

If some of this is still unclear, ASK!  This was a complicated sentence!


>	mu'tlheghmeywIj jImugh bolegh, bIheghbogh.

This sentence is very similar to your previous one.  Rather than show similar 
correction on this, I am going to ask qor to attempt to re-translate this in 
response to this post, either to the list, or to me privately, as he prefers  
(my email is [email protected] or [email protected]) as an exercise.


>	bIneH boSuq, 'ej jIneHvISuqQo' ('ach tlhIngan Hol vIghoj, jIneHbogh).

I think you are trying to translate a bit too literally.  Your first sentence 
was intended to mean "You get what you want", or "You get [the goal which] you 
want."  this is another realtive clause, which you tried to translate as two 
sentences.  What you have as <bIneH>  ("you want", no object) should have been 
<ngoQ DaneHbogh>  ("the goal which you want"  Not the change of the verb 
prefix again!).  <boSuq> is fine, if you want to mean "all of you" ("you" 
referring to more than one person).  In such a case, I would recommend 
(although to my knowledge, in this case, it certainly isn't required) that the 
prefix on the relative-clause verb also be "all of you", or <boneH>.  You 
forgot the space in between the two sentences after the <'ej>, but I see that 
you have a similar construction there.  I also see that you used -Qo' again.  
this is an example where you do *not* want to use -Qo', becasue it says "I 
refuse to get what I want." {{:)  Why don't you re-translate the second half 
of that sentence for me again as well? {{:)

Your comment in parenthesis followed the same pattern of your second and third 
sentence, kinda.  I would re-word this, and possibly break this down into two 
sentences.  The first part, <'ach tlhIngan Hol vIghoj> is perfectly fine.  The 
second part is a relative-clause... but where is the noun it modifies?  
<tlhIngan Hol>?  "I"?  No.  It is referring to the whole sentence.  What you 
are really trying to say seems to be "But I am learning Klingon; I wanted 
that."  This is one of those sentence-as-object things I was tlaking about 
earlier.  In this case, you don't need to use <'e'>, because <neH> is one of 
those exceptions I mentioned (pages 65-67, look especially starting with the 
last paragraph on page 66, which has but one line at the bottom, and page 67), 
so the -bogh isn't even needed... although your jI- needs to change to vI-, 
because <neH> has an object (the sentence <tlhIngan Hol vIghoj>):

	'ach tlhIngan Hol vIghoj vIneH
	"but I want to learn Klingon"

This may seem to take away from what you intended, but it seems pretty clear 
to me.  If you wanted, you could even add a -choH to <vIghoj> to make it "But 
I want to begin learning Klingon" or even add a type 7 suffix, such as -lI' to 
<vIghoj> to add a sense of time:

	'ach tlhIngan Hol vIghojlI' vIneH
	"But I want that I am in the process of learning Klingon"

Is this close to what you had in mind?


>	tlhIngan Hol jIghoj vIQuch!!!!

Um, not quite, but close. {{:)  There are two problems with this sentence.  
The first is the prefix on <ghoj> again; it should be vI- (<tlhIngan Hol> is 
the object, "I" is the subject).  Considering how many errors you have made on 
verb prefixes in this post, I *really* recommend you re-read the section on 
them on pages 32-34, or send me private email.  The second is how you cast 
this sentence.  There is a large amount of talk on here about verbs being 
transitive or intransitive, and I really don't want to get into that, but this 
sentence would have worked out MUCH better had you re-worded it slightly to "I 
am happey *because* I am learning Klingon" (emphasis to denote change).  This 
is MUCH easier to translate:

	tlhIngan Hol vIghojmo' jIQuch!!!!

Note the use of -mo' on <vIghoj>, and the change on the prefix on <Quch>, 
which now has no object ("I am happy").
	
>	On this last sentence,  how would get across the notion of Originally?
>	(see the translation arena for more info)

How about you re-cast it a bit?  How about something like this:

	jItaghta'DI', tlhIngan Hol vIghoj vIneH
	"I wanted to learn Klingon when I began"

Note the <jItaghta'DI'>, which means "When I began", and also sets the tense 
for the rest of the sentence.  Often, if you cannot translate soemthing word-
for-word from the English, think of what you are REALLY trying to say... and 
re-word it a bit.  That will often give you something that works a bit better.


>---- tlha' mughboghmey (Translations follow???) ---------------


Not quite, but almost.  How about <tlha' mughghachmey>?  If you are going to 
use a verb as a noun, then you have to nominalize it first. {{:)


A few comments for qor:

It looks to me like you are trying to say more at once than your translation 
skills are allowing right now.  Instead of trying to tranlsate these huge 
sentences, break them down; make them simpler.  Re-word them a bit, before you 
try to translate them.  I want to keep haering from you, because this was the 
longest correction I have had to post to date, and I know you really want to 
learn (or you wouldn't be here).  If anything I said in this post confuses 
you, *please* contact me, either on the list, or through private email!  I 
will keep explaining things to you, and trying to help you get it right until 
either you get it right, or scream at me to stop. {{:)  I am here to help you, 
so.... use me and abuse me!  (naDev "be kinky"bogh vay' yIjangQo'qu', 
Qanqoroy!!!! {{;) )








Translations:
------------

Have I corrected my previous errors now, Qanqor and ~mark?

Don't respond with anything kinky here, Qanqor!



--hoD trI'Qal

Back to archive top level