tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 25 18:31:24 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

KLBC: QutneS ghIth: Part 3

First, responses to the corrections, and then more story.


>> Sengbej ghu'vetlh.              This situation would surely cause trouble.

> Either the Klingon should be {ghu'vam} or the English should be
> "That situation".

Ouch.  Of course you are right.  Time to fix it...

>> quSDaq ba'ta' vaj cha'DIch, chom yu'law'taHvIS wa'DIch.

> Hmm. I'm tempted to question the use of {wa'DIch}, but
> technically, it is a number, and numbers can be used as nouns.

Maybe it will make more sense when you see my intended translation, below. 

>> Hopbe' quSDaj 'ach mutu'.

> "His chair is not far, but he finds me."?

Nope, I was intending another meaning for <<tu'>>.  Not "find" but "notice."
 Except I also had meant to make it negative.  It should be <<mutu'be'>> "he
does not notice me."

>> vaHDajDaq pu'wIj vIQeyHa'moH.

> Hmm. When I first read this, I was confused as to why "my"
> phaser was in "his" holster. Now, I realize that you meant that
> it was in "it's" holster. As a matter of style, I'd probably
> still call it "my" holster, since I own it, even though it is
> tightly associated with the phaser.

Yeah, it takes a little more thought to get it to work, but the  possessive
suffix is "its" not "his."  Ambiguity is a part of all the languages I've
ever studied.  Ideally, context will provide a clue as to the better
interpretation.  It seems to have done so for you.  I didn't want to repeat
"my" again.  It felt a bit too simplistic.  I was hoping that semantic
association (phaser -> holtster) and proximity would be enough for it to
work.

>> vIHoHlaHchu' 'ej mubotlaHbe'chu'.

> You might consider {-bej} instead of {-chu'} here. The latter
> is not altogether wrong, but it implies a quality of execution
> that seems odd here.

Ah, I see what you mean.  Thank you, that is a nice distinction.

>> 'e' 'ang mInDu'wIj 'ej 'e' legh.

> You may be getting a little loose with the Sentence As Object
> construction. I'm not sure. You want the conjunction to make
> the two {'e'} pronouns essentially parallel. In other words,
> both {'e'}s refer to the same previous sentence. This is
> interesting, and I'm not sure if it is right or not. I can deal
> with it, and I suspect pretty much anybody could understand it,
> though it does not strictly fit the pattern as it is commonly
> used. I'm open to other opinions here.

I'm not sure you're reading this correctly.  Both <<'e'>>s do *NOT* refer to
the same sentence.  I didn't think you could do that.  Instead, each <<'e'>>
refers to the sentence which preceeds it.  They're nested.  See my
translation below.

> charghwI'


Okay, here's the story so far, after charghwI's latest corrections and
recommendations...

 cha'Hu' tachDaq jIvem.            Two days ago, I awoke in a bar.
 pay' pa'Daq paw cha' vaj.         Suddenly, two warriors arrived in the
room.
 loDnI'chaj viHoHta'.              I had (deliberately) killed their brother.
 'e' vIqaw vIleghDI'.              When I saw them, I remembered that.
 Sengbej ghu'vam.                  This situation would surely cause trouble.
 quSDaq ba'ta' vaj cha'DIch,       While the first appeared to question the
bartender,
 chom yu'law'taHvIS wa'DIch.       The second warrior sat in a chair.
 Hopbe' quSDaj 'ach mutu'be'.      His chair was not far away, but he did not
notice me.
 vaHDajDaq pu'wIj vIQeyHa'moH.     I loosened my phaser in its holster.
 muHaDchoH ba'taHbogh loDnI'       The brother who was sitting began to study
me.
 machovchuq.                       We assessed one another.
 vIHoHlaHbej 'ej mubotlaHbe'bej.   I could surely kill him and he could
certainly not prevent it.
'e' 'ang mInDu'wIj 'ej 'e' legh.   My eyes showed it, and he saw it.*

* the first "it" here refers to the preceding sentence "I could surely kill
him and he could certainly not prevent it."  The second "it" refers to the
phrase that precedes *it*, "My eyes showed it."  That's what I meant about
the <<'e'>>s being nested.  Clear?


Good, now, on to part three...

jIQamchoH 'ej DaqDaj vIghoS.
"naDev jIba' chocherghneSchugh."
pagh jatlh vaj 'ej quS chIm vIba'ta'.
"nuq bonejneS SoH juplI' je?"
QIt Hagh.
"loDnI'Hom vIghajtaH boghpu'DI' 'ach jupwI' mojta'be'."
'IQ mu'meyDaj 'ej vajvam vIvup.
vIvupqangbe' 'ach vIvupqu'bej.
jIDoghchoH.
chu'wI' tu' nItlhwIj 'ej jor nachDaj.
wIv val vIwiv'a'?
tugh 'e' vIghoj.


::to be continued..::

Back to archive top level