tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 30 14:09:34 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: story, part 2
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: story, part 2
- Date: Sat, 30 Nov 96 20:16:15 UT
November 29, 1996 8:57 AM, jatlh Deborah Kay:
> pe'loravaD mon vavchaj.
> cha' parHa' DareS, ach pe'lora maS.
> "lu', Saghoj, 'ach tulobnIS 'e' boyu'be'.
"I will teach you" is {SaghojmoH}.
I'm not sure if I like your use of {yu'} here. I'm reading the Klingon first,
without reference to the English, and I needed to translate this into English
before I could understand it. Perhaps you could change it to something like
tulobnISchu'
and leave off the {yu'} part entirely. I don't know, perhaps it's just me.
> SuQochbe''a'?"
> lujangmeH, loS vavchaj.
> SeytaHvIs, jatlh pe'lora, "jIQochbe'."
> tamtaHvISqu', jatlh velqa, "jIQochbe'."
I don't think you meant the {qu'} to emphasize "while." Probably change this
to {tamqu'taHvIS}.
> "HI'Ij," ra' vavchaj, "qeltaHvIS wa' DIS, SuqeqlaH.
Ack! This is turning into a losing battle for me! People love to translate
"listen to me" as *{HI'Ij}! I honestly don't think {'Ij} is transitive;
otherwise Okrand (in TKW) would have translated "Listen to the voice of your
blood" as {'IwlIj ghogh yI'Ij}, but he didn't. He said {'IwlIj ghogh yIQoy.}
I recommend you change this to {HIQoy}.
Also, you should use the verb {qaS}, not {qel}. Was this just a slip of the
brain?
> may' qeqmey, QI' Dupmey, moQbara', betleH tonSaw' je boghoj.
Yes!!! I love the way you've changed "I will teach you" to "you will learn"!
It doesn't lose a thing, and it doesn't flirt with the disaster of {ghojmoH}!
Wonderful!
> lIchov QI' 'ampaS la'a' 'ej SuQapchugh lIchovDI' vaj 'ampaS boghoSlaH.
> not QI' 'ampaSDaq HaD be'pu' 'ach vIQorghlaHbej.
Hmmm . . . I suppose that "take care of" is an English idiom when used in this
way. After all, you should be able to say "I will care for that," but it
doesn't seem to work. I might suggest {'ach ghu'vam vIlughmoH} or something
like it.
> qeltaHvIS wej DISmey, naDev SuratlhnIS.
Ummm . . . I'm beginning to suggest that you are confusing {qaS} and {qel}.
This should be {qaS}.
{qaStaHvIS wej DISmey, pa' SuratlhnIS}
I think {pa'} might be a better choice, because I see {naDev} as referring to
the place that these Klingons are currently talking.
> juHDaq SucheghDI' vaj nentay bolop 'e' vIchaw'.
> tlhIngan SuvwI'pu' moj tlhIH.
> Suyaj'a'?"
> "HIja', vav," jatlh cha'.
> "DaH," taH vavchaj, "juHDaq chutmey chu' bopabnIS.
I'm not sure if {taH} works as a verb of saying here.
> tlhIHvaD jIjatlhDI', peQam, peqIm, petam 'ej HIbuS neH.
Excellent way of saying "Stand at attention." The end is a little foggy,
though. {HIbuS neH} means "merely pay attention to me," which means that the
paying attention is trivial. I think you mean {jIH neH yIbuS} "focus on me
alone."
> tujatlhDI', {joHwI' qaH} ghap tIlo'nIS.{vav} vIlo'Qo'."
{tujatlhDI'} means "when you speak me." {jatlh} as a verb of speaking does
not seem to use an object. Change this to {jIHvaD SujatlhDI'}.
> morghrup pe'lora.
This is "Pelora is ready to protest," but she hasn't done it yet. Whereas
{morghchoH pe'lora} would mean "Pelora begins to protest." Which do you mean?
> "ghobe', pe'lora, HIyu'Qo'."
{ghobe'} is not just any "no." It is used in answer to yes/no questions. It
is the same as saying "negative." Has Pelora asked any questions? No.
Therefore {ghobe'} is not very appropriate here. You might consider something
like {bIjatlh 'e' yImev}, or even an invective.
You've used {yu'} perfectly here, though.
> pe'lora tammoH vavchaj.
> chel DareS, "Dat peqet, not peyIt.
Again, I'm not sure if {chel} works as a verb of saying.
This is starting to sound like a Klingon S&M story!
> SulaDmeH 'ej SuSopmeH, Suba' 'e' vIchaw'.
> Hoch latlh poHmey peQam.
> pa' vI'elDI' peQam 'ej pevan.
> SujatlhmeH, SutlhobnIS.
> ghe''or 'oHqu' juH'e' 'e' boQubchugh, SulughHa'.
> QI'tu'na' 'oH juH'e'.
> ghe''or 'oH QI' 'ampaS'e'.
> be'Hompu', SuQochbe'taH'a'?"
> "HIja', qaH," jatlh cha'.
> "nom pa'raj yIghoS.
> nI'law'qu' wa'leS.
This really means "Tomorrow will probably be very long." It doesn't refer to
the perceptions of the sisters, but rather the perception of their father, the
speaker. {-law'} indicates that he is unsure of the validity of what he is
saying.
I'd probably just leave it at {nI'qu' wa'leS}.
> loSvatlh rep HIja'."
That's not "report to me," that's "tell me." "Report to me" would be {jIHvaD
yIja'}.
> "HIja', joHwI'," jatlh cha' 'ej SIbI' lob.
{lu'} or {luq} would probably be more appropriate than {HIja'}. After all,
the father has not asked a question. He's given an order, and the girls are
saying "okay."
> Qub vavchaj, qaStaHvIS wa' DIS lutaHchugh, vaj jIH mumerbej ta'chaj.
You should probably put quotes around the father's thoughts.
> pa'chaj SIchDI', SaQ pe'lora, "mughIj vavma'; vIyajbe'."
This is probably not the correct meaning of {SIch}. I suspect that {SIch}
refers to putting out one's hand and taking something {vISIchlaH} "I can reach
it." I'd use {paw} here. {pa'chajDaq pawDI'}
> "yI'IQQo'. rInpa' leng, DujlIj DachoH DaneH'a'?" jang velqa.
Hmmm?? I'm not sure I understand. If you've talking about changing
something, you need {-moH}: {DujlIj DachoHmoH} would be "you cause your
instincts to change," or "you change your instincts."
I'm not sure I understand your usage of "instincts," anyway. How about:
{wIvlIj DachoHmoH DaneH'a'?}
> "ghobe', velqa." jatlh pe'lora.
> "lu'," jatlh velqa.
{lu'} means "okay, let's do it." "Okay" is a weird English word, whose
origins are very uncertain, and which can mean almost anything. It doesn't
always mean "let's do it." In this case, I'd use the word {maj}. Velka *is*
expressing satisfaction.
> "vavma' yIvoqqu'. vay' ra'DI' vav, vaj SIbI' yIruch. qaQaH.
> ngoQmaj wIchav. yIjot" 'uchchuq, QongtaHvIS.
Hmmm . . . interesting image of Klingons!
batlh DaqontaH! majQa'! vIlaD 'e' vItIvqu'!
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96916.8