tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 18 15:45:20 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: "Excalibur" vImugh
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: "Excalibur" vImugh
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 23:44:48 UT
December 18, 1996 5:20 PM, jatlh HurghwI':
> DochvetlhvaD maw' parmaq ponglu'bogh 'oHvaD, nuv mIpbe' voDleH je charghbogh
> mISvetlh maw' . . . Qo'! not!
>
> ". . . all for this lunacy called love, this mad distemper that strikes down
> both beggar and king . . . never again! Never!"
> -Merlin, "Excalibur"
> This seemed appropriate deeming the recent discussion over love.
Ack! This does NOT belong under KLBC! It's difficult!
You're close in your translation. There are a few problems. The main one is
that the English is not a complete sentence, and this causes the Klingon to
suffer. You have translated the "for" directly into {-vaD}, but a better
suffix would be {-mo'}.
Also, you must say {Dochvetlh maw'mo'}, not *{Dochvetlhmo' maw'}.
What's the subject of {ponglu'bogh}? If you've got {-lu'} you can't have one,
but you seem to want one with the {'oH} after it.
Here's a quick edit of your sentence. I encourage others to come up with
better ones.
Dochvam maw'vaD parmaq ponglu' 'ej parmaqmo' wo' Qaw'rup. nuv mIpbe' voDleH
je charghbogh mIS maw' 'oH . . . Qo'! not!
This crazy thing is called par'mach, and because of par'mach, he is prepared
to destroy an empire. It is a crazy confusion which conquers poor people and
emperors alike . . . No way! Never!
> HIqlIj DanuDDI', qaSpu'be'bogh wanI'mey DanuD. 'oH Datlhutlhta'be'chugh, nuq
> DaSovbej? 'ej vaj SoH paSqu'ba' . . . . paSqu'.
>
> "Looking at the cake's like looking at the future; until you've tasted it,
> what do you really know? And then, of course, it's too late . . . . too
late."
> -Merlin, "Excalibur"
> In light of the fact that a suspicious Klingon would likely inspect his
> drink for poison (and there's no word for cake), I've changed the subject to
> liquor.
Good idea, but only a coward would use such a method!
The only problem I have with the above (I like the sentence) is the last bit.
{vaj SoH paSqu'ba'}? I don't understand that at all. The {vaj} is
"therefore," not "next."
Starting at your {'ej vaj . . .} (and removing it), I'd say
{'ej Datlhutlhta'DI', Datlhutlhba' rIntaH . . .}
or
{'ej Datlhutlhta'DI', qaSba'pu' . . . qaSba'pu'}.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96966.4