tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 15 11:33:05 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: RE: Old Translations

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:47:31 -0800 David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> December 14, 1996 3:11 PM, jatlh Perry Brulotte:
> 
> > K:  SuDo'be'chugh, vaj lIHIv.
> > E:  If you are not lucky, they'll attack you.
> 
> maj.
> 
> > K:  Do' mamej.
> > E:  Luckily we left.
> 
> Umm, well, yes.  I'm wondering if it means "It was fortunate that it left," or 
> "We left in a lucky manner."

Well, it couldn't mean, "It was fortunate that IT left," since 
"we" were the ones leaving. Meanwhile, if your question relates 
to which entity fortune was favoring, I think an indirect object 
would disambiguate:

Do' chaHvaD mamej.

Hmmm. But that implies that we left for their benefit, which 
might not be what was intended.

mamejmo' Do' chaH.

Basically, I think that if you intend anything but "Fortunately 
for us, we left", it works best to use the verb {Do'} instead of 
the adverb to explicitly state who is fortunate, and then use 
{-mo'} to explain WHY the subject is fortunate. My first effort 
was a misfire.
 
> > K:  DubwIj DatI'a'?
> > E:  Can you fick my back?

If the verb is supposed to be {tI'}/"fix", then you need to 
include both glottal stops:

DubwIj DatI''a'?

What you did was like spelling "butter", as "buter". A glottal 
stop is just like any other consonant. It is gibberish, thus the 
response:
 
> nuqjatlh?!!?
> 
> > K:  De'wI'wIj vIDubnIS.
> > E:  I need to upgrade my computer.
> 
> maj.  DaHjaj De'wI'wIj vIDub je.  DaH wejmaH cha' "megabytes" lo'.

juH De'wI'wIjvaD Dubta'ghachvam vIwuQbe'. vIDubDI' loSmaH chorgh 
*megabytes* vIneH. vIta'chugh naQ *motherboard*. 'ach *laptop* 
'oHmo' waHqu' [waghqu'?]. DaH Huch yap vIghajbe'. chaq qaSpu'DI' 
jav jar ghu'wIj vIDubta' 'ej De'wI'wIj vIDublaH.

yaHDaq wejmaH cha' *megabytes* ghaj De'wI'wIj. pa' *NT* loS 
vIlo'.

> > K:  yIDuDQo'.
> > E:  Do not mix it.
> 
> maj.  Assuming, of course that {DuD} means "mix something" and not "be 
> together."  But if it did mean the latter, why would Okrand use {tay'taHbe' 
> 'Iw bIQ je} in TKW?  I think your sentence should be all right.

Good point. Page 34.
 
> > K:  Dugh DevwI'wI'.
> > E:  My leader is vigilant.
> 
> maj.
> 
> > K:  DIHIv yIDuHmoH.
> > E:  Make it possible for us to attack them.
> 
> Almost.  This is a bit tricky:
> 
> DIHIv 'e' yIDuHmoH.
> Cause to be possible that we attack them.

Good. I also like:

DIHIvmeH 'eb yIchenmoH.

I'm not sure why. It just feels more like what I'd say if I had 
that thought. "Opportunity" just feels more inticing than the 
action of causing something to be possible.
 
> > K:  nuq DuHmeymaj?
> > E:  What are our possibilities?
> 
> This only works when clipped.  The full version would be
> 
> nuq bIH DuHmeymaj'e'?

And here, I'd say:

'ebmeymaj tI'ang.

or maybe:

'ebmeymaj tIDel.

Of course, if what I'm asking for is a list of unpleasant 
options which must be chosen among with no positive goal except 
to get this choice out of the way (What will it be? Soy milk or 
beet juice?), I might fall back to:

DuHmeymaj tIDel.
...
> > K:  nuq DuplIj?
> > E:  What is your strategy?
> 
> Again, this is clipped.  The full version would be
> 
> nuq 'oH DuplIj'e'?

or:

DuplIj yI'ang.

Just because it is a question in English does not mean it has to 
be a question in Klingon. The meaning is the core. Asking 
someone to tell you something is just a polite way of telling 
someone to tell you something, and why bother being polite? 
Klingons don't have a word for "polite", except perhaps the 
implication of {Human}.

> > K:  choDuqbe'chugh, vaj qaDIl.
> > E:  I'll pay you not to stab me.
> 
> There are three problems here.  The first is a spelling error: "stab" is 
> {DuQ}.
> 
> The verb {DIl} means "pay for."  The object of the verb must be whatever you 
> are paying for.  You have two choices here.  Either specify what you're paying 
> for, {vaj De' vIDIl}, or choose another verb (or possibly use the word 
> {jIDIl}, leaving what you're paying for general).
> 
> Finally, there is a purpose clause which needs {-meH}:
> 
> choDuQbe'meH SoHvaD Huch vInob.
> I'll give you money so that you don't stab me.

majQa'! There is clearly purpose in the payment. This is lost in 
the conditional version of this statement. The one addition 
being the possibility of (perhaps confusing to beginners) say:

choDuQbe'meH Huch qanob.

This only works when the direct object has an explicitly 
different person and number from an explicit object. Here, 
{Huch} is third person singular, while {qanob} implies a second 
person singular object. Because the disagreement is clear, you 
can tell that either this is a mistake, or you are directly 
addressing the money (which would be more than slightly odd), or 
the 2nd person reference in the prefix points to the indirect 
object instead of the direct object.

Yes, it is confusing, and it tempts one to overgeneralize and 
start using prefixes to point to indirect objects even when 
there is no explicit object. BAD DOG! BAAAAAAD DOG! On the 
paper! On the paper!

If you want to use this clever shortcut, learn that it is 
exceptional and do not try to extend it beyond the limits of 
this grammatical device. {tajvam qanob} does work to mean "I 
give the knife to you," or "I give you the knife." Meanwhile, 
you cannot say, {qanob} to mean "I give it to you." That would 
have to be: {SoHvaD vInob} or {'oH qanob.}

Am I making sense here? It is very similar to the English, where 
"I give the knife to you," can also be stated as "I give you the 
knife," but you would never say, "I give you," while you can 
say, "I give to you." See?
... 
> > K:  Dujvetlh Doj.
> > E:  That ship is impressive.
> 
> Again, another misordered stative verb.  What you've said is "Impressive 
> ship."  

Well, what he said was, "This impressive ship..." Still, your 
point is totally correct. This is not a sentence. It's just a 
noun phrase.

> This is only a noun phrase.  

That's what I just said. Ummm. Of course you said it first, 
right? Isn't Email wonderful?
...
> > K:  Dop nuq bIneH?
> > E:  What side to you want?
> 
> This is one of those cases where you're trying to say "which something?"  This 
> cannot be done in Klingon.  Don't say *{nuq <noun>}.  Reword your sentence.
> 
> Dop yIwIv!

qatlho'qu'.
...
> > K:  Dotlh HIja'!
> > E:  Status report!
> 
> This is a tricky case.  As far as we can tell, Klingons only use direct 
> quotations with their verbs of saying.  You're trying to say "Tell me the 
> status!" but it probably comes out as "Tell me 'status'!"
> 
> In this particular case, I usually allow {ja'} to take an object besides the 
> person being spoken to.  My reasoning: one of the words used to define {ja} is 
> "report."  In English, you "report" a thing, not a person (unless that person 
> is the subject of the report).  

Meanwhile, I always thought that word was in the definition to 
cover intransitive use of {ja'}. Note that "say" is one word for 
{jatlh}, and in its one canon useage in TKD p48 
{bIjatlhHa'chugh}, it does indeed mean "say the wrong thing", so 
he does use "say", but it is actually intransitive, as the 
prefix reveals. In English, "say" can be transitive with the 
object being the direct quotation, but Okrand has gone out of 
his way to avoid this, so this does not seem to be why he put 
"say" in his definition.

If I wanted to receive a status report, I'd just yell:

yIja'!

"Report!"

I mean, what else would you report if not status? "What I did on 
my summer vacation"? No. You are on a ship. Your captain turns 
to you and says, {yIja'!}

Do you have a problem with this? Would this be likely to be 
misunderstood? No. You'd just yell {Qapchu' Hoch, jawwI'!} and 
hope he asks somebody ELSE next time.

> I'd get by with {jIHvaD Dotlh yIja'!}  In a 
> battle situation, where clipped Klingon is being used, I'm sure they just say 
> {Dotlh!}

I'd accept your clip, but the long version bothers me. I'd 
understand it, but never say it, like when my friend says to me, 
"Would you get me down a glass from the shelf?" The little hairs 
on the back of my neck stand up.
... 
> > K:  juDev vIneHchugh, juDevlaHbe'.
> > E:  You couldn't lead us if you wanted to.
> 
> Hmmm . . . you should be able to read this as "If you want to lead us, you 
> cannot lead us."  Does this mean the same thing to you?

Umm. It means, "If *I* want you to lead us, you cannot lead us." 
bIDoy'ba'. yIleS.

"You could not lead us if you wanted to"

juDevlaHbe'ba'. juDev DaneHchugh bIDogh.

puq DaDevlaHbe'. targhlIj DaDevlaHbe'. bIDev'eghlaHbe', qoH! 
ghew ramqu' SoH! DaSwIj bIngDaq qabeQmoHpa' yIlojchoH!

Ummm. Sorry. I got carried away.

> > K:  De'vam choDIlnIS.
> > E:  You must pay me for this information.
> 
> Again, the object of {DIl} must be the thing being paid for.
> 
> jIHvaD De'vam DaDIlnIS.

Wellllll. I'd go either way on this one. The relationship 
between the verb and direct object is definitely through the 
preposition "for" in the definition, and the direct object is 
definitely {-vaD} material, but this does seem to be valid use 
of the "give me the knife" shortcut.
... 
> > K:  DaH choDIlbe'chugh, vaj qaHoH.
> > E:  If you don't pay me now, I'll kill you.
> 
> heh . . . sounds like a prostitute.

Yep. This is one of those overgeneralizations of the shortcut. 
With no explicit direct object, you can't use the prefix to 
point to an indirect object. "If you don't pay for me now, I'll 
kill you."

> DaH jIHvaD Huch Danobbe'chugh, vaj qaHoH.

Yes, much better. Or:

DaH Huch chonobbe'chugh vaj qaHoH.
 
> > K:  tugh DIlyumvam qanobqang.
> > E:  I will give you the trillium soon.
> 
> Actually, your Klingon says "I will be willing to give you the trillium soon."

Keep him straight!
... 
> > K:  yIDISbej.
> > E:  You will confess.
> 
> If you're making a statement, don't use an imperative prefix.
> 
> bIDISbej.
> 
> If you're commanding, say "Confess!"  {yIDIS!}

Yep. {yI-X-bej} is definitely too weird to parse. If you are 
trying to say something about the quality of the confession, 
then perhaps: {yIDISchu'!}
...
> > K:  Do 'ar wIghaj?
> > E:  How fast are we going?
> 
> Hmm!!  That's an interesting way to do that!  I don't know if it works, but 
> you certainly get points for trying!
> 
> nom majaH'a'?  nuq 'oH Domaj'e'?

Very interesting. There seems no way to escape idiomatic use of 
words. Klingon must have its own idiom for this. 

qelI'qam rep 'ar 'oH Domaj'e'?

pIvlob 'ar 'oH Domaj'e'?

Do 'ar maH?

Do 'ar majaH?

Domaj yIjuv 'ej yIja'!  {{:)>

Of course, nobody ever notices that despite Star Trek 
convention, velocity is meaningless without a reference 
framework. A spaceship can't have a speedometer. It can only 
have a radar gun. It can only measure RELATIVE velocity. There 
is no such thing as absolute velocity in space because nothing 
is standing still.

It's kinda like the way Star Trek spaceships always meet with 
their tops pointing in the same direction, and they are always 
well lit even when far away from any stars.

But I digress...

> -- 
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 96955.7

charghwI'

Back to archive top level