tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 11 13:41:00 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nabwIj - tlhIngan wo' batlh (&KLBC)


Alan A. writes:
>>wa'DIch, *pIcarD* wIHoHnIS
>This "adverbial" use of {wa'DIch} isn't mentioned in TKD, and I don't know
>of any canon examples of it.  I don't like it.
 Why not?  It clearly translates to "First, we must kill Picard".  I'm not
quite sure you think that this doesn't work.  Isn't the point of adding
{-DIch} to numbers to list first, second, etc...?

>>bIlegh, *pIcarD* HoH toQDujwIj

>"You see,..." is one of those annoying extraneous phrases one finds
>scattered throughout English.  It is certainly not something that a
>true Klingon would say, and most Klingons would see it as a sign of
>dithering and lack of straightforwardness.

I thank you for your correction on my Klingon culture.  However, I am
focusing more on grammatical sense of this...pretend a human is saying this.
 ( a human who REALLy likes the Klingons :) Point well taken though

>>je DIvI' vIQaw' 'ej tlhInganpu' che'

>This is *extremely* confusing.  {je} meaning "also" *follows* what it
>is referring to; do you mean "I will destroy the Federation also" or
>"I also will destroy the Federation"?  I'm pretty sure you have the
>word order reversed in the second sentence.  "He rules Klingons" doesn't
>seem to fit what you're talking about.

I was trying to say "And,..." Maybe a {cha'DIch} "Second, " or "Next"
although you don't seem to like this #{-DIch} :)

>>juppu'wI' bIleghmeH, romuluSngan HoS puS 'ach DIchargh

>"My friends, for you to see, few strong Romulans; but we conquer them."
>I'm at a loss to understand the middle of this sentence.  What did you
>want to say?

I was trying to say something like:
juppu'wI' bIleghmeH,  romuluSnganpu' chargh rotlh law' verenganpu' chargh
rotlh puS
However, I am not sure even if this one is right. (this is a change I made on
the second "nabwIj" I sent.
What I did want to say was "For you see, my friends..." I know you disapprove
of the cultural implication that his speaker is not direct but go along with
what I said up there.  The word ordering might be the problem...How about the
reverse {SuleghmeH juppu'wI'}  (I added the plural suffix to the verb because
the noun was plural)

>>DIvI' vIQaw'ta'DI', jo DIlo' verengan charghtaH ngeDmeH
>>'ej romuluSngan charghtaH rotlhmeH

>If you create a purpose clause with {-meH}, it *precedes* the noun or verb
>it is describing (TKD 6.2.4).  But that's not how you seem to be trying to
>use it.  It looks like you are trying to translate something like "it is
>easy to..." and "it is tough to...", but that's not easily translatable.
That's exactly how I want to use!  I know it's seems hard to translate but I
couldn't think of another way to write it

>Also, {jo DIlo'} and {verengan charghtaH} have no grammatical connection,
>so it's hard for me to tell what you really mean.

{jo DIlo' verengan charghtaH ngeDmeH} I was trying to say: We will use their
resources for an easy conquering of the Ferengi"  I know  {verengan} should
be {verenganpu'}, but I made that change in the second "nabwIj" I sent.

>"Qu'vatlh! nuqDaq jangrajghach jay' "

nuqjatlh?  Where's the verb, and what do you mean by {jangrajghach}?

If {-ghach} makes {jang} a noun? Why couldn't this mean "Where ARE my @#$&
replies?"

Sorry about the Qu'vatlh comments etc....  

>I'll let you look at my comments on the original post rather than duplicate
>them here with modifications.  You did catch the extraneous {-Daj}, but you
>added {-'e'} in a couple of strange places.

I would still appreciate some comments on the revised "nabwIj", if you could.
 Especially on my use of {-'e'} because  like you said, it was used in weird
places, but that's because I need practice with it and would like some help
with it.

qatlho'
Qapla'

-Thiago Miranda, ra'wI', toQDuj: "tlhIngan wo' batlh"

Back to archive top level