tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 21 20:15:57 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Analysis of {mo'taq lut}
ghItlhpu' janSIy (jIH) <[email protected]>:
> > On January 30, I wrote the following story to chastise those who try to
> > write Klingon above their level, and to encourage those who are taking it
> > slow and easy.
A. Appleyard replied with his analysis.
I would like to first thank Mr. Appleyard for replying. I appreciate his
comments. I would also like to encourage others to comment on my
original posting. I hope that I'm not overstepping my bounds in asking
that EVERYONE who has a comment please send them to me. This is not a
normal circumstance, as the grammarians are the only ones who should
comment on the grammar. But in this specific instance, I am interested
in hearing everyone's comments.
> * mo'taq lut
> @ [Motak's story]
>
> * SuvwI'Hom ghaH neH mo'taq
> @ Motak was merely a small warrior
HIvqa' veqlargh. That should have been SuvwI''a'. And charghwI''s
clarifying suggestion is well taken. This sentence should be-
SuvwI''a' ghaH mo'taq neH mo'taq
> * qeq qeylIS 'e' tlhob mo'taq
> @ Motak asked that Kahless [should] train
> === I suspect that {qeq} is intransitive only, and thus this sentence is like
> me telling Cousteau to go learn how to scuba dive; likely {qeq} here should be
> {qeqmoH} = "cause (Motak) to practise, train (Motak)" (trans.).
Personally, I believe that qeq is only transitive. The meaning that you
read in qeq should be qeq'egh.
> * batlh mo'taq ghojmoH 'e' nID qeylIS
> @ Kahless attempted that he teach Motak (about) honor
> === Here and below the two meanings of {batlh} cause ambiguity.
> For "with honor" I am tempted to suggest {batlhtlhej} = "honor-accompany".
charghwI' suggests I use quv instead of batlh. I have what may be a
unique opinions here. I use batlh to mean the Klingon ethical code. I use
quv to mean personal recognitions and awards. We have no proof either
way, so I will not argue it, but I also will not go against my beliefs.
I did realise later, though, that there is a much better way to put this.
mo'taqvaD batlh ghojmoH 'e' nID qeylIS
> * batlh HaD 'e' neHbe' mo'taq
> @ Motak not want that he study (about) honor
If, from the previous sentence, you can't figure out that batlh is a noun
here, then go ahead and use it as the adverb; that could be true too.
...
> * ghojtaHghach taghmeH ghojtaHghach taghbogh De''e' lo' vaj 'e' 'ut
> @ It is necessary that warrior uses information which begins continuous
> learning for the purpose of beginning continuous learning
Oh man do I hate that sentence, but it does say what I wanted it to.
> * latlh jeychugh SuvwI' 'ach batlh ghajbe' vaj yay tu'be'lu'
> @ If warrior defeat another but not have (with) honor,
> @ one not find warrior's victory / then one not find victory
> === Homophone ambiguity between the 2 meanings of {vaj}.
I also use two separate meanings for vaj and SuvwI'. I use SuvwI' to
mean, "a fighter who does not deserve the title 'warrior'". This is
usually either an untrained fighter or a un-honourable fighter.
And a quick note about Mr. Appleyard's translation. The position of vaj
(even if it was SuvwI') between two sentences causes some confusion. It
was intended to be the subject of the preceding verb, not the possessor
of the following noun. Anybody know how to clear this up?
> * Da'qeS vengDaq rewbe' HoH Ha'DIbaH qu'
> @ At Da'qeS('s) city a fierce animal killed a citizen
HIvqa' veqlargh. He's busy tonight. That Daq was not supposed to be
there and I might as well go ahead and use the plural. Should be-
Da'qeS veng rewbe'pu' HoH Ha'DIbaH qu'
> * vajDaj pong qeylIS
> @ Kahless called his warrior
> === Is {pong} correct for "summon" rather than "give a name to"?
Since we don't have a word for summon and most anyone would understand
this I decide to leave it. rI' (suggested by charghwI') seems less
(although not wholly un-) likely to mean 'summon'.
> * 'ach 'etlh lo'laHbe'chu' mo'taq 'ej 'e' leghlaH Ha'DIbaH
> @ But Motak was clearly worthless (with his?) sword and animal could see that
I have to admit that I do not have a complete grasp of -chu'. I meant it
to refer to his level of expertise, not the certainty of his inability.
Since it was that expertise that did not exist, would it be clearer to say-
'etlh lo'laHchu'be' mo'taq
> * nom chay' HoHlu' 'ang Ha'DIbaH
> @ The animal showed how fast one kills
> === Indirect question construction
I would expect you translation to be-
chay' nom HoHlu' 'ang Ha'DIbaH
But maybe I should have written-
chay' HoHlu' nom 'ang Ha'DIbaH
> * Ha'DIbaH tIq tu'laH mo'taq 'e' qItpu'
> ---- tIq ---- - V:be_long_of_object - N:heart
> @ It was possible that Motak could find animal's heart
> @ It was possible that Motak could find the long animal
> === Homophone ambiguity again
The first is what I meant. Any suggestions for how to clear this up?
> * yay batlh joq ghajbe' qeqchu'bogh qoH
> @ A fool who trains perfectly has not victory and/or honor
janSIy