tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 03 07:13:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Do you put out for chocolate?
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 17:10:20 -0800
>From: "Kevin A. Geiselman, Knight Errant" <[email protected]>
>I was writing a "Dear Kordite: An Advice Column" response to a curious
>Orion about some aspects of Klingon love and remembered an article in a
>fanzine "Heart of Glory." There was a translation of the phrase, "Do you
>put out for chocolate" as follows:
> yuch DaSuqmeH ngaghghach Damech'a'?
Ugh, that's pretty hideous; better things are available even without heavy
recasting.
>I remembered the long debate about the use of -ghach and concluded that
>this wasn't acceptable. As was the attempt to use bang as the noun
>'love' instead of 'one who is loved, beloved.' (Glen Prochel aparently
>did these translations, go figure.) My attempt is:
Naw, Glen uses "bang" for abstract love and doesn't put -ghach on bare
verbs (he just uses the verb-stems as nouns, freely).
> yuch DaSuqchugh chongaghjaj'a'?
>I think it sounds like an honorable, hopeful request. How did I do?
Hrm. Well, I don't understand how -jaj and -'a' can be on the same verb,
and that makes sense, since they can't: they're both type 9 suffixes. -jaj
means "may it be so!" and -'a' asks a question. One's asking a question
and the other almost provides an answer; how can both coexist on the same
verb? Maybe "yuch DaSuqchugh chngaghqang'a'?"; -qang is the meaning I
think you were hoping for. But that sort of confuses the causality: "If
you get chocolate, will you [be willing to] have sex with me?" If the
answer is "yes", I suppose one should then say, "Great! Go get some!" The
question is more "If I *gave* you chocolate, would you [therefore] have sex
with me?" or "Would you and I have sex because I gave you chocolate?" i.e.
yuch qanobchugh, chongaghqang'a'?
yuch qanobmo' manga'chuq [SoH jIH je]?
I'd avoid "ngagh" when possible, since Okrand gave us "nga'chuq" much
before it and seemed to be making a point as to how Klingons tend to view
sex, at least sex among people, as something that's more a "-chuq" affair
than something done by one person to another. "ngagh" came up later, when
he was looking for a way to fit that into a command involving an animal, so
it may carry a different connotation. This isn't to say that "ngagh" is
necessarily taboo, but I'd try to go for "nga'chuq" whenever possible... if
for no other reason than it's not the English way of saying it, and it's
nice to try to practice breaking English molds.
The English question, of course, is generic, asking in general do you put
out for chocolate, not necessarily if *I* gave it to you. Maybe...
yuch Danoblu'chugh bIngaghqangchoH'a'?
or a little more twisted...
Sunga'chuq SoH, yuch nobwI' je reH DaneH'a'?
Or bring back the "Suq"...
yuch DaSuqDI', nobwI' Dangagh DaneH'a'?
I could probably come up with a bunch... Dunno if I patricularly like any
of these more than the others...
~mark