tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 04 17:56:37 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 12:41:42 -0500
Peter Watkins (nagh) writes:
>DanuDmeH cha' mughghachmey vIngeHlI'
><I'm sending two translations for you to examine>
The word {mughghachmey} is pretty bad. In an interview in HolQeD 3:3,
Okrand clarifies that {-ghach} shouldn't be used on a verb without any
intervening verb suffixes. While it can be understood, it isn't quite
"normal". The other problem is that it would be understood as meaning
the *act*, not the result of the action. "Translation" in this sense
would be the process of translating. You want to refer to what comes
out of that process: the words which have been translated. In Klingon:
{mu'mey mughlu'ta'bogh}. If you want to include the fact that *you* did
the translating, you can call them {mu'mey vImughta'bogh} "words which
I have translated".
>1. Actions work where words fail
>
> pIj batlh lu'angbe' mu'mey 'ach batlh lu'ang vangghachmey
> <Often words don't reveal honour but actions do>
{vangghachmey} has the same problem with {-ghach}. Consider {ta'mey}.
The original sentence can be translated much more closely if you want:
{lujtaHvIS mu'mey Qap ta'mey}.
>2. No goals, no glory.
>
> ngoQmey Daghajbe'chugh vaj biQapbe'
> <If you don't have goals then you won't succeed>
Fine. There's a new verb introduced in TKW: {Hutlh} "lack". It might be
appropriate in place of {ghajbe'}.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj