tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 22 15:38:52 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Repetition
- From: [email protected] (MR PAUL J COFFEY)
- Subject: Re: Repetition
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 18:13:21 EST
O.K. So the taxes can wait an hour!
ghItlh ghunchu'wI'
>ghItlh qeSmIv HarghwI':
<pe'>
>> loghDaq Hop Hut DISvam jarDaq cha'DIch nargh lut chu'
>
>lutmey chu' vIloS. QaQjaj chaH!
jIQochbe'bej
>
>I'm uncomfortable with the physical (place) suffixes {-vam} and {-Daq}
>being applied to temporal (time) concepts. {DISvam} clearly means "this
>cave" to me. "This year" is too much of a word-for-word translation for
>my tastes,and {jarDaq} doesn't sit right either. English "in," when it is
>applied to periods of time, means "during" more than it means "inside".
Yes, David Barron has already taken me to task on this failing with
the locative particles. I shall do my best to correct it.
But word-for-word equivalents occasionally occur between languages,
simply because the native speakers happen to have opted for the same way to
express certain ideas. The fact that something translates word-for-word
can be mere happenstance. Certainly I would not translate something word
for word unless it were the correct translation, considering the many years
I have preached against it.
>
>I'm also a bit leery of the way you've translated "On Deep Space Nine".
>According to TKD 4.4, type 5 noun suffixes like {-Daq} are placed after
>a verb used adjectivally, instead of on the noun being modified.
Right! Another <jIDIv>. I now wonder too if <-Daq> is correct even
there. I thought of "on the program" as locative, but I'll bet there are
those who will insist that it is temporal, and I can see their point
>However, I'm sure you don't mean that new stories appear on the station
>itself! I dont think {-Daq} works well to say things like "Next, on
>'Oprah'..." or "Yesterday, on 'General Hospital'..." I would instead say
>something like {...nagh <logh Hop Hut> lut chu'}.
That sounds good, but I still need a way to say "in February." How
about the following, forgetting about the year altogether? (We know what
year we're in.)
juSvIS jar cha'Dich nargh <logh Hop Hut> lut chu'
>
>> <puqloDpu' mogh> 'oH lut pong
>
>If this is supposed to be "Sons of Mogh," the word order is backwards.
>It's fine if the episode's title is "Frustrated sons." :-)
No, It's <mogh puqloDpu'> right enough. {sigh} Although the other
might also be appropriate to the episode.
>
>>tlhIngan Hol lugh lo' 'e' vItul 'a ghaytan qartaHghach luchavbe'
>
>Hol lo' 'Iv? You've said that you hope that "he" uses correct Klingon.
>If you meant "they" (whoever "they" are), it needs to be {lulo'}.
Quite so. I was thinking about the writer and so used the singular,
but in truth the plural would be more appropriate, considering the number
of people involved that might have an affect on the correctness of the
language used, director, producers, actors; especially since I used lu- later.
>
>> logh Hop Hut Dabej'a'
>
>pIj <logh Hop Hut> vIbej jIH. vIbej rut 'e' vItIv.
reH vIbej 'ej pIj vItIv 'a ben vaghmaH Soch QeD lutmey
ngotlhtaHghachwIj vISuq
Qapla'
qeSmIv HarghwI'