tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 18 13:45:01 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:2010 "warning"
According to [email protected]:
>
>
> tlhInganpu':
>
> I was watching 2010, yesterday, and though that I would try and put the final
> warning speech into tlhIngan. I won't post the translation, because I want
> to see if you can translate it (meaning I hope I didn't screw it up too bad)
> :) .
>
> Hoch yuQmeyvam boghaj 'ach *Europa*
Mostly good. Since {Hoch yuQmeyvam} is a noun-noun possessive
construction, it means either "everybody's these planets" or
"These planets of all". We have come to the consensus on this
list (I believe) that this is better stated as {yuQmeyvam
Hoch}, "all of these planets".
> SuSaq pa' bonIDQo'
Less mostly good. The words can still be used if shuffled
around and supplemented with an {'e'} and change one sentence
to the imperative:
pa' SuSaq 'e' yInIDQo'.
Basically, you have two main verbs, so in Klingon, that means
you have two sentences and you need some way to justify them
coexisting. In this case, one is the direct object of the
other. In English, we state it as one sentence "Don't try that
you land there," or, "Don't try to land there." In Klingon, it
is two separate sentences. "You land there. Don't try that!"
The "that" represents the preceeding sentence. It is also the
direct object of the second verb. That's what {'e'} does. You
need it with verbs like {nID}. There are only two kinds of
verbs that don't need it. You don't need it with {neH},
"want", and you don't need it with verbs of speech, like
{jatlh} or {ja'}. For any other "Sentence as object"
construction, the {'e'} is needed.
As for the imperative, the speaker is giving a command, not
just a statement. They are not saying, "You refuse to try that."
They are saying "Don't try that." See the difference?
> tay'ghach tIlo'
"Use being together!"? We hope soon to resolve the issue of how
to use {-ghach} well. The wording in TKD is quite suggestive
that it is not okay to use it except to allow verbs that
require verbal suffixes as part of their meaning (like naDHa')
to be nominalized. Until we get better descriptions from Okrand
(which are supposed to appear in this issue of HolQeD, (and I
always seem to get my copy weeks after everybody else. Gee, I
wonder if it is because the government boys who secretly review
my mail take such a long time to decode it...) we can't be
secure in how proper it is to use {-ghach} on bare verb stems.
Even without that issue, I'm having difficulty knowing what you
mean by this. That's the problem with a lot of nominalizations.
What is a noun equivalent to "be together"? "Group"? We HAVE a
noun for that already. "Unity"? "Togetherness"? So what does it
mean to "use togetherness"? I think I need a hint here.
> rojDaq tIlo'
"In the location of peace, use it."? Abstract concepts like
peace rarely work well with locative endings. In English, we
might say, "Be at peace", but in Klingon, we would almost
certainly not use a locative for that. Again, I'm a little too
puzzled on this to figure it out.
> b'ret
Overall, it looks like you took on an ambitious first
translation and didn't do that bad. You laid down a foundation
that you can polish to finish into a good work. The first half
is pretty much nailed down. That last two lines may need
rethinking.
charghwI'