tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 15 14:35:46 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC:Quotes
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: KLBC:Quotes
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:34:45 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:39:02 -0800 David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> jatlh taDI'oS:
>
> > > English- You saw his weakness, and he will never forgive you
> > > tlhIngon Hol- puj Dalegh 'ej DulIjQo'
> > > back to English- You see him be weak and he won't forget you
That would have to be:
puj 'e' Dalegh 'ej DulIjQo'.
You can't leave out the {'e'}. Otherwise, you have two main
verbs. SuStel should have noticed that.
> > It sticks in my mind that there is a word for forgive. It's not in
> > pojwI', or the www.kli.org word list, but I'm sure I saw it because I
> remember
> > my surprise at finding such an un-Klingon concept represented.
If you ever find a reference to such a word, let me know. I
don't find it in MY word list.
> > If I'm just
> > imagining things, couldn't you say something like <bortaS ta'bej>?
Yes, but it might be better to say:
DavuvHa'law'mo' bortaS nejbej.
> I keep feeling the same thing, and I have no idea why! Still, you've got a
> good idea here: {bortaS ta'bej} or {bortaS chavbej} convey some of the idea.
> However, it's actually more aggressive than what's above. Someone who never
> forgives may not actually seek revenge (ask one of my ex-girlfriends . . .).
I disagree. They seek it by merely waiting for it, a rather
human approach, I'll admit, but just because they never achieve
revenge, that doesn't mean they would not welcome it were it to
appear before them. They passively seek revenge.
> > > English- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger
> > > tlhIngon Hol- HoSwI' SuchenmeH SuHoHboghQo'
He'So' mu'tlheghvam.
{chen} is definitely the wrong verb, being rather intransitive.
I had always heard that as "If it doesn't kill you, it makes you
stronger," which would be:
DuHoHta'be'chugh qay'bogh wanI' vaj ghur HoSlIj.
But to take it from your English:
HoSmaj ghurmoH qay'bogh wanI' 'ach nuHoHta'be'bogh wanI'.
I don't like this as much.
> > > back to English- You which don't kill for the purpose of building you
> > > stronger
You misuse the verb {chen}. {chenmoH} means "make" as in "cause
to form" with "form" being intransitive. When you say, "Makes us
stronger", you are taking a totally different branch of meaning
out of the verb "make" from anything remotely associated with
"cause to form".
> > > I'm not positive of the entire structure here.
You are perceptive. You have good cause to doubt.
> > Just my cha' DeQmey, but I'm thinking something like <muHoHbewI'
> > muHoSmoHbej.>
Ewwwwwww! vIHotQo'! yIHmey rur!
> taghwI'vaD bIjang jay'! jItlhob, jIjangbe' bIjatlh! bInep jay'! {{:-)
>
> Beyond a missing glottal stop and the <*gasp*> horrible breaking of trust on
> your part, this is a good translation.
!!!?????!!!! nuq? nuqjatlh?
I'm speechless.
> It doesn't say "makes us stronger," but
> making us strong is certainly more than not making us strong, so the meaning
> seems to be intact.
wejpuH. DuSaqDaq yIchegh. jIbelHa'.
> nom bIjangchugh, SoH latlh je vIjangnIS. HIloS!
'ej bIjangDI' bIjangchu'!
> SuStel
> Stardate 96868.0
charghwI'