tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 12 15:26:19 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)



Thiago Miranda 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...?

According to TKD 5.2, ordinal numbers such as {wa'DIch} "first" (used
to identify one of a group of items) follow the *noun* they modify.
There is no reference to them being used to identify which of a group
of *actions* one is talking about.  You're getting confused by the way
English uses the words.  The "word-for-word" translation argument is a
red flag that you're trying to translate words instead of ideas.

>>>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

I should have gone a bit further in my admonition.  Don't even try to
translate phrases like "you see" literally.  It doesn't work, because
it doesn't literally mean "you see."  Maybe, just maybe, you might be
able to convince me that it's a command and not a statement, meaning
"Understand."  It would then have to be translated {yIyaj}.

>>>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} :)

As I said before, {je} "too, also" comes *after* the noun or verb it is
referring to (see TKD 5.3 for a complete discussion).  Once again, which
do you mean?  "I'll destroy the Federation also" or "I'll also destroy
the Federation"?  Are you adding the Federation to your list of targets,
or are you adding the destruction of the Federation to your to-do list?
If you're planning to destroy it along with other groups, then you say
{DIvI' je vIQaw'}.  If you're planning to destroy it in addition to doing
other things, then you say {DIvI' vIQaw' je}.

If you're merely trying to tack the sentence on to what has come before
it using the word "and", then you use {'ej} betweem the sentences.  This
might be what you were trying to do: {'ej DIvI' vIQaw'}.  It's not quite
what I'd call a splendid example of Klingon grammar, but it's probably
okay.  (I'm sure the KBTP runs into sentences like this all the time.)

>>>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.

{chargh} is a verb, and cannot fit the slot in the {law'/puS} construction
in which you have tried to place it.  Try {romuluSngan DIcharghmeH Qu' Qatlh
law' verengan DIcharghmeH Qu' Qatlh puS}.

>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)

Again you are ignoring the grammar in your quest to translate the words.
"For you see" as you've used it does *not* mean "in order that you see"
at all.  This particular "for" is sort of the opposite of "thus" -- it is
very close in meaning to "because" -- and it doesn't have anything to do
with the "you see" or the "my friends".  Both "you see" and "my friends"
are parenthetical phrases, having nothing to do with the meaning of the
rest of sentence.  {-meH} is absolutely *not* the right way to express
what you mean.

>>>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

It's not just *hard* to translate -- it's *impossible* to translate this
literally (don't even try).  English often uses "it" as the subject of a
sentence, standing for an infinitive phrase given later on; but we have
no tools for using a sentence as a subject in Klingon.

>>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.

Let me suggest what I think is a good translation of your sentence, and
you can see if it makes sense to you.
{nom verenganpu' DIcharghchu'meH jomeychaj DIlo'}

>>"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?"

First, {-ghach} on a bare verb is weird.  Okrand says it feels like
"pleasureness" would in English; the meaning is almost clear, but the
word is not quite normal.  Second, noun suffixes go on *nouns*, thus
would *follow* the {-ghach}.  I guess I won't complain too strongly
about the shorthand {nuqDaq 'oH}, but I'd prefer that beginners keep
to the most easily understood forms until they are very well along
with the grammar.

>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.

Sorry, I've already thrown it away.  I'm afraid I'd just be repeating
myself too much if I did try to critique it; there are just so many things
that need addressing.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj




Back to archive top level