tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 20 23:44:53 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
qaD vIjang: leng'a'
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: qaD vIjang: leng'a'
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 11:39:45 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS's message of Sat, 19 Mar 94 17:38:59 EST <[email protected]>
>From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 94 17:38:59 EST
>Note to Goran: I'd comment on the Bhagavad first, but I'll wait a week lest
>the official grammarians have aught to say.
Eeek! I guess I'd better find an English Bhagavad then. I never read it;
I just know its first verse in Sanskrit (and can even remember the grammar
involved in its construction), but nothing else.
>> [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.
Welllll, we do have "naDev bIHtaH" for "here they are" in PK. I don't like
a bare "naDev" for the Anglicism "here", standing alone, but used in a
sentence it's less bad. It still sounds English-y in this case, but not
>> 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'".
Um, he never said "Doy'". He said "Doj". This makes *far* more sense. I
thought "loprupchoH" worked fine when I read it at first. "ghIr" may be
overly idiomatic, though. Perhaps "jotchoH"?
>> BrandeisDaq DISmaj wa'DIch, "altar"maj'e' wI"sacrifice"pu' ("window"
>Didn't you sacrifice scroll*s*? Then DInobpu'.
You misread again, Nick. The bit with the scrolls was last sentence.
Here, they're sacrificing the *altar* (note the well-used "-'e'" on it: it
was the altar we sacrificed).
>> 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.
Watch it with these. Neologisms make endless sense in *retrospect*, but
when you're presented with one out of the blue they're far harder. Someone
wanted "mu' 'IH" once for "poetry" (before the "bom" revelation). It's a
wonderful image, but wouldl;leave a first-time reader completely lost.
"HIvje''a'" is OK for "bowl", but especially in a story like this, you
definitely have to stick with "glass" in quotes. Krankor is very much
right that transliteration has its place in projects like the KBTP and the
KSRP, but it's a bear for casual texts.
Hmmm... I wonder if "glass bowl" shouldn't be something with a relative
clause, maybe even something as long-winded as "<<glass>> lo'taHvIS
HIvje''a' chenmoHlu'bogh" or something. cf. Welsh "tegan wedi ei neud o
bren", "a toy after its making of wood". But that's just musing.
>> "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.
I like "Sugh"; I'm not sure "tagh" is bad.
>> 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."
This is verb-in-apposition stuff, which is, granted, under discussion.
Would it help if they both had "-'e'" on them, so they couldn't be
>> 'IHtaH Hatlh 'ej DuntaH jaj 'aj QaQtaH Hoch.
Typos, typos... I didn't note them in my critique; don't think I didn't
see them tho...
>>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."
Yeah, actually it did look like they were stopping Rob from calling at
first glance. 'Course, it'd have to be "wImev"... (in your sentence as
>> wIQub, rI'Se' paq wISuqlaH. "Lipinski" 'ar ngaSlaH?
>I'm not sure rhetorical questions work in Klingon.
Well, from just my feelings about Klingon culture, they feel awfully
Klingonic to me. There may also be some canon behind them... I recall some
movie or another (I really don't know which, maybe VI?) where there was
someone asking "Do you want to take that risk?" or something, which in
context was arguably rhetorical.
>> 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'
Yeah, this works better.
>> KingDaq maghoS. pawDI' Soj ngevbogh be''e' wIghom,
>mapawDI'? The waitress could be both met and arriving, but that's an odd
No, this is okay: when the *food* arrived, we met the *waitress*. Maybe if
there were a commn, "pawDI' Soj, ngevbogh ..." Hrrm, if that were the
meaning, Krankor probably wouldn't have used "be''e'". Ah, I see: when
*she* arrived, we met the waitress. Cataphora. Are you becoming afraid of
>Proechel's kin terms are as good as any (at least, they've yet to be condemned
>in HolQeD's pages): loDnI''a'.
Here as above in places I didn't comment: neologisms are something to be
awfully careful about. They only make sense in retrospect.
>> 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'.
Yeah, this is likely a good point. But I could see this working by
metonymy. Klingon needn't be so precise as Lojban.
>> '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".
I think you're right.
>I feel exhausted after all that! Quite a saga indeed. Remind me never to
>introduce any of my girlfriends to you... ;)
Awww, he survived meeting mine... and so did she...