tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 10 14:59:10 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: story, part 4
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: story, part 4
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 22:35:48 UT
December 09, 1996 7:46 PM,jatlh Deborah Kay:
> juHDajDaq chegh vav 'ej puqbe'pu'Daj ja', "la''a' vIpon. Sovraj chov.
> wa'leS mon veng maghoS.
{mon veng wIghoS}
> betleHmeyraj tajmeyraj je tIqem.
> DaH ramvam Sun yIlIj.
Pick one. Is it {DaH} or is it {ramvam}? English sometimes uses "now" as a
prelude to saying something, and it doesn't have a temporal meaning. Don't do
this with Klingon. (E.g., "Now, in order to kill the Emperor, we must act
swiftly.")
> retlhwIjDaq peba'.
> tlhIHvaD qeylIS ta' qelbogh gha'tlhIq vIja'."
Heh . . . I like the fact that you didn't put an {'e'} on either of the nouns
in the {-bogh} clause. It could work either way, so why bother making a
distinction?
> jatlhtaHvIS DareS, cholchuq Hoch.
Hmmm . . . {cholchuq} would probably mean "get closer each other," not "get
closer *to* each other." Been reading the {jaH} thread?
I suggest {jatlhtaHvIS DareS, botlhchajDaq chol Hoch}. Anyone have a better
idea?
> Hur bIr ram, 'ach juHDaq bIrHa'law'.
{HurDaq}.
Is the narrator not sure that it is not cold inside? I can't read {-law'} any
other way, and I don't understand your usage of it here.
> Quchqa'law' pe'lora.
> tamqu' velqa.
> rinDI' DareS, tlhup velqa, "qamuSHa', vavoy."
> "SamuSHa', puqbe'pu'oy," jang vavchaj.
This isn't a matter of grammar, but I have a problem with Klingons telling
each other they love each other all the time. I don't mind with Much Ado,
because it's very much a comedy, but in a serious setting like this, it
doesn't make sense.
Even the language agrees with me. Isn't it telling when there's a word for
"detest" but not for "love"? I don't think Klingons would use negated words
nearly as much as regular ones; otherwise, there would be "love" but not
"detest."
For you (and all other writers out there) I recommend that you listen to what
the language is telling you. {qamuSHa'} to me isn't quite the same as English
"I love you." It's really saying "I don't hate you."
> "qaStaHvIS ram pa'Daq peQong."
>
> qaStaHvIS po puqbe'pu'vaD mu'meyDaj Qav jatlh vavchaj.
In the case of {qaStaHvIS ram}, the action will be occurring all night, so a
continuous idea like you have is good.
In the case of {qaStaHvIS po}, the action simply happens, so there's no need
for the {-taHvIS}. In fact, since you're trying to say "When morning came,"
all you need to do is say the time! (This sort of thing was first done in
Conversational Klingon.)
{po puqbe'pu'vaD mu'meyDaj Qav jatlh vavchaj.}
> "DISvam botaH 'e' vIQubbe'.
This time, I believe {taH} is intransitive (or at least, hasn't been shown to
work transitively yet). You "survive," you don't "survive something."
qaStaHvIS DISvam SutaH 'e' vIQubbe'.
> DaH bowIvbogh DochvamvaD jIQochbe'.
Ick. You've put the head noun of the {-bogh} clause in the wrong position (it
should be the object of {bowIvbogh}. But this isn't really what I don't like.
"Thing" is a horrible word to overuse. I'm also not entirely sure I'd accept
"Thing which you have chosen" as the recipient of the action "I agree." Let
me suggest a recast:
'ampaSDaq SuHaD 'e' DawIv. DaH jIQochbe'.
You chose to study at the academy. Now I agree.
A little note: {Qoch} is another verb which is too frequently negated by
Terrans trying to speak Klingon. However, in this case I think it is quite
appropriate: DareS is no longer disagreeing.
> la''a'vaD boSovbogh Hoch yI'ang.
Hmmm . . . you've misordered the relative clause and its head noun again. It
should be {Hoch boSovbogh}. If you wanted, by the way, this could also be
rendered as {Hoch Sovraj}.
> SuyoHtaHvIS, Qu'vam bonIDchugh, jIbelqu'. Ha'."
> tugh QI' 'ampaSDaq paw.
> la''a' luqIH be'ni'pu'.
> ra'bogh ghomDaq Qam mangHompu'.
Hmmm . . . what are you doing with {ra'bogh ghomDaq}? I know you mean "in
formation," but I read it as "in a group which commands." Maybe {lobrupbogh
ghomDaq Qam mangHompu'} "in a group which is ready to obey."
> "nabvam wIpab," jatlh la''a'.
> "taghmeH betleH tonSaw' mangHom vIwIv."
> cha' be'nI'vaD legh.
> "wa'DIch 'Iv?"
{wa'DIch} must always follow a noun (unless, of course, you're singing {taHjaj
wo'}). You must also use a "to be" construction.
'Iv ghaH SuvwI' wa'DIch'e'?
although I prefer
SuvchoH 'Iv?
> tonSaw' yoS 'el Velqa.
> "jIH, qaH," jang.
> velqa qab qIpmeH, nom ro'Daj lo' la''a'.
> "reH jIHvaD la''a yIpong. yIlIjQo' jay'!"
> vay'mo' velqa, Somram vIHbe' pagh jatlhbe'.
"Because of something, Velka, hull-night it doesn't move she says nothing."
What happened here? How about this:
'oy'qu'mo' velqa, Somraw vIHmoHlaHbe' 'ej jatlhlaHbe'.
PK has {vIHtaHbogh bIQ} for "running water." {vIH} is intransitive.
> ghaH bIjDI' vavDaj, qIpmeH ghop poS lo' neH.
> "chojangDI', tonSaw' wItagh," jatlh la''a'.
> machDaj pep velqa 'ej pe'vIl jang, "HIja', la''a'."
heh . . . you had me searching through the dictionary for another meaning for
{mach}. Watch your spelling!
> qaStaHvIS wej DIS betleH tonSaw' laDbogh mangHom wIv la''a 'ongqu'.
Unless he only *read* about it, I think the word you want is {HaD} . . .
> Qub la''a', "mangHomvam jeylaHbejbe' velqa."
You've just negated {-bej}, which means to me that the commandant is pointing
out to himself that he is not certain that what he's saying is correct. I
think you meant {jeylaHbe'bej}.
> vanchuq gholpu'.
> jeQqu' mangHom 'ej Qub, "qaStaHvIS wa' tup, vIjotlh."
> "SuSuv 'e' yItagh," ra' la''a'.
> ghom betleHmeychaj 'ej mupchuq 'etlhmeychaj.
> velqa betleH qIptaH mangHom betleH.
> Hub'eghmeH, 'etlhDaj lo'velqa botaHvIS.
You were getting tired of typing by now, weren't you?
{Hub'eghmeH, 'etlhDaj lo' velqa bottaHvIS.}
> 'oy'bej velqa DeSDu' 'ach jIjechrupbe'. qevpobDaj 'oy' qaw.
'oy'bej velqa DeSDu' 'ach jeghrubbe'.
> pay' much'egh 'eb.
"An opportunity presents itself" is an English saying. We know from TKW p. 51
that Klingons "capture" opportunities. At first, I was going to suggest
{nargh 'eb} "an opportunity appears," but this also means "an opportunity
escapes," which is exactly what a Klingon says when referring to a missed
opportunity.
I don't know; maybe {much'egh 'eb} would make sense to a Klingon. Or {'eb
legh velqa}. I doubt that something which is to be captured would be worth
much if it "presented" itself (I mean, where's the fun in capturing something
which is *asking* to be captured?).
> velqa betleH botlaHpa' mangHom, pe'vIl 'uSDaj qIp velqa 'ej pummoH.
> ghopDajvo' pum mangHom betleH.
> nom HughDajDaq 'oHtaH velqa betleH'e'.
You might consider {nom HughDaj pe'rup velqa betleH}.
> mangHomvaD jatlh velqa, "Doghjey."
Wow! I've never seen anyone use that word before! I had to look it up!
majQa'!
> nuHDaj SIchlaHbe'mo' 'ej 'uSDaj ghorlu'mo', Qochbe'nIS mangHom.
I got confused for a moment. {SIch} and {ghor} are being used to indicate
different times. I suggest {ghor} get an aspect marker:
{nuHDaj SIchlaHbe'mo' 'ej 'uSDaj ghorlu'pu'mo', Qochbe'nIS mangHom.
> velqavaD jatlh la''a', "yay Daghaj 'e' vIpay."
> "la''a," jang velqa machDaj pepHa'taHvIS. "Bijatlh 'e' yIchaw'."
> "JighIb."
Ooohhh, I can see why you cut the story here! "Head" is {nach}. "Permission
to speak" is (fully) {jIjatlh 'e' yIchaw'}, although you may want to clip it
to resemble its English version: {jatlh 'e' chaw'}.
majQa'! lutvam vItIvqu'taH! qonwI' po'qu' SoHbej!
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96944.4