tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 25 10:22:01 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon on the Live TV channel, UK
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 02:43:43 -0700
>From: [email protected] (Richard Kennaway)
I may have missed something here, but while there were responses to this
post, none answered the plea for Grammatical correction. So I'd better
take a look....
Sorry if I'm being redundant as well as cruel.
>I await dismemberment by the Grammarian.
OK.... :)
>Q: Who are the Klingons?
>A: tIQ maH. quv maH. toDuj, HoS, batlh je DIvuv law', Hoch DIvuv puS.
>Subtitle: They are an ancient and honorable race, who value courage,
>strength, and honour above all things.
I think you've forgotten your verb-conjugations (prefixes) here. "we are
ancient" is not "*tIQ maH" but "matIQ [maH]", right? You have to put the
prefixes onto the verb that agree with the subject and object even if the
subject and object are explicitly stated too (just as you have to say "he
likes" with an "s" at the end even though I know it's third-person singular
from the pronoun). So it has to be "matIQ. maquv."
I don't think we have *any* evidence that you can use law'/puS
constructions with sentences/verbs. law'/puS compares *nouns* (or
pronouns). Maybe "toDuj, HoS, batlh je DIvuv: bIH potlh law', Hoch potlh
puS."
>Q: The Klingons used to be enemies of the Federation, but I believe they
>are now allies?
>A: DIS law'Daq tera' wISuvtaH. vaj Doghjeychaj DIlajpu'.
>Subtitle: For many years we fought the humans. Finally, we accepted
>their plea for peace.
We don't use "-Daq" on times, only locations (cf. "qaStaHvIS wa' ram, loS
SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD.") Okrand's pretty consistent on that. Try
"qaStaHvIS DIS law', tera' wISuvtaH." I think it should be "wIlaj", since
it's only one unconditional surrender, and it didn't happen *before* the
fighting, so there shouldn't be a perfective on it.
>Q: How do Klingons regard humans?
>A: jun tera'nganpu'. tlhIb chaH 'ej yuD chaH. tlhIngan 'oHbe'chu'
>tera'ngan.
>Subtitle: Humans seem to us evasive, bumbling, and weak. Humans are
>certainly not Klingons.
Probably would be better with "junlaw'... tlhIblaw'... yuDlaw'" "jun" is a
little... creative usage, but it'll do. Humans and Klingons both are
speaking critters, so you shouldn't use "'oH", which is for non-sentients.
And you're speaking in plural, and don't forget the "-'e'" that goes on "to
be" constructions: "tlhIngan chaHbe'qu' tera'ngan'e'" (-qu' makes more
sense here).
>Q: How did the Klingon language come to be created?
>A: Doch'a'mey rInmoHchu' *Paramount*.
>*Star Trek* lut wejDIchDaq marQ 'oqranD lughuvpu'.
>tlhIngan Hol nabta'.
>tlhIngan mu'ghom lulIngta', 'ej SuvwI' Hol HaDtaH tera'nganpu'.
>Subtitle: Paramount are very thorough. For the third Star Trek film,
>they commissioned Marc Okrand, a linguist, to design the whole language.
>They published a Klingon dictionary, and humans began to study the
>warriors' tongue.
Perhaps "*Star Trek* wejvaD" instead of "-Daq". I don't think the "-pu'"
is needed in "lughuv." Perhaps "ST III-vaD tlhIngan Hol 'oghmeH,
M.O. lughuv." That's what -meH clauses are for, after all. 'ogh is likely
better than "nab."
They didn't publish TKD before the time under consideration, but after. So
there's no place for the "-ta'", I think. You also need "luHaDtaH".
>Q: Are there many humans learning Klingon?
>A: HISlaH! DatDaq Hatlh law'Daq ghojwI' vatlhmey.
>chenta' tlhIngan Hol DIvI'.
>Holmaj Ho'qu' tera'nganpu'.
>Subtitle: Certainly! There are hundreds of students in many countries.
>A Klingon Language Institute has been founded to unite them. Humans are
>quick to appreciate our language.
"Dat" never takes "-Daq" (see p. 27). I'm not sure we can attach "-mey" to
a number used as a numeral, though maybe you're using it as a noun
(hundred(s) of them...) in a noun-noun construction with "ghojwI'" (which
would explain why it comes after and not before). There's no verb in the
sentence, though. You should have "lutu'lu'".
The second sentence is fine (including the -ta'), tho I think the KLI calls
itself "tlhIngan Hol yejHaD" for some reason.
Should be "luHo'qu'".
>Q: How does the Klingon language reflect their culture?
>A: puj tera'ngan Holmey. tlhIngan Hol'e' mu' HoS mu' qu' je law' ngaS.
>mu'mey potlh ngaS: batlh, tonSaw', QeH, yuch je.
>SuvmeH pu'mey mu'mey je lo'laH SuvwI'.
>Subtitle: It is full of strong, harsh sounds, with no human flabbiness.
>It has many words for the important things of life: honour, fighting,
>secrecy, and chocolate. A warrior knows how to fight not only with
>phasers, but with words.
The second sentence has the wrong word-order (appears to be SOV. Klingon
is OVS). It should be "mu' HoS mu' qu' je law' ngaS tlhIngan Hol'e'."
I like the last sentence.
>Q: How would a Klingon say "hello", for example?
>A: not tlhuHchaj lulo'Ha' tlhInganpu'. tera'ngan'e' yap "nuqneH".
>Subtitle: Klingons do not waste their breath on pleasantries. "nuqneH"
>is close enough - it means "what do you want?"
I'm not sure what "tera'ngan'e'" is doing in the second sentence. For all
that it seems to imply "as for..." in Klingon (tho Okrand has explained
that it really means more like "it is..."), we have no evidence that "-'e'"
creates a new place in the sentence. Rather, as you have it, we have
"tera'ngan" as the object of "yap." I don't really know what the object of
"be sufficient" would be. Probably you wanted "tera'nganvaD yap "nuqneH.""
>Q: And what about "goodbye"?
>A: [with a sneer] "goodbye" jatlhbe'bej tlhIngan. rInDI' malja' mev mu'mey.
>Subtitle: There is no word for "goodbye". When business is finished, the
>conversation is over.
Good.
>Q: Thank you.
>A: 'IwlIj jachjaj.
>Subtitle: May your blood scream!
That's the correct incorrect word order. :-)
Hope I wasn't too hard on you... but you asked!
~mark