tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 28 10:15:31 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Phrases
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Phrases
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 13:16:10 -0400
At 03:33 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Perry J. Brulotte wrote:
>Here are some phrases I have tried to translate over the past few days.
>Comments??
Well, I looked down the first dozen or so before popping open a window for
reply, and you have som really GOOD translations here... you have a few that
need some work, but most of what you have here was very well done! majQa'!
Also, this is the kind of stuff I LIKE to see beginners start with! Why?
because each sentence is very short and simple, and if you have errors, you
only have one or two in a sentence! Very nicely done!
Let's take a look at each one...
>choHoHbe'chugh, qaHoH!
>-If you don't kill me, I will kill you.
Give yourself a pat on your back for this one! It's absolutely correct. I
might throw a -bej on <qaHoH> though, for emphasis and clarity--"I will
certainly killl you!" {{:)
>be'nI'wI' berghlaw'.
>-My sister seems irritable.
Well, you have all the right pieces, and each piece is constructed right,
but you have them in the wrong order. From looking at some of your later
translations as well, I get the impression you have some trouble
understanding verbs with "to be" in their meaning. These verbs are verbs
like any other, and go in the same place as, say, the verb <HoH>, "to kill":
before the subject. Although Klingon does not have a verb "to be", per se,
it does have a number of verbs which contain the concept of being: <Quch>,
"to be happy; <'It>, "to be sad"; <SuD>, "to be blue/green/yellow"; <yap>,
"to be enough". Unlike in English, where you have to have two words to
express each of these concepts ("the verb " to be" and the concpet being
expressed), Klingon contains BOTH the concept AND the verb "to be" together.
For example, to say "I am happy", I need only the verb <Quch>, and the subject:
jIQuch jIH
"I am happy"
Please note that the pronoun <jIH> is not required here... I could just as
easily said <jIQuch> and I would still be understood. I left it in there,
so you (and anyone else who might be having this problem) can see the
similarity between that sentence and this one:
Quch be'nI'wI'
"My sister is happy"
Please note that I changed the verb prefix to match the new subject... but
that the subject still goes AFTER the verb.
And by now you probably see where I am going with this {{:)
berghlaw' be'nI'wI'
"My sister seems irritable"
There is no difference here between the use of <Quch> above and <bergh> as
you intended to use it in your sentence. I hope you don't mind this rather
lengthy explaination, but you seem to be having this problem only with "to
be" verbs (somtimes referred to as "stative" verbs, because the describe the
"state" of things). I'm also kinda taking the opportunity to go into some
detail about stative verbs. {{:)
As a general rule, these verbs cannot have an object--you cannot "be happy"
something! The exception to this is when the verb has -moH, the causative,
attached to it. If one of these verbs has -moH attached, then it CAN (and
probably has to have) an object:
be'nI'wI' vIQuchmoH
"I cause my sister to be happy"
This might be better thought of as "I cause to be happy my sister", which
doesn't make a *lot* of sense in English, until you think about it a few
minutes, and parse it the only way it can be: that I am the cause of my
sister's happiness.
Finally, there is one other way these verbs can be used--and in this case,
they could indeed follow the subject! These verbs can be used as adjectives
(pages 49 and 50 of your KD). When you use a verb as an adjective, it
FOLLOWS the noun it modifies, for example:
be'nI'wI' bergh
"my irritable sister"
Please notice that this is NOT a complete sentence! It is only a phrase
describing my sister, and as such, it can be used anywhere you would
normally put "my sister". For example,
QeH be'nI'wI' bergh
"My irritable sister is angry"
This IS a complete sentence; it just happens to have two stative verbs with
it... and there is only ONE way to interpret the meaning: "My irritable
sister is angry", because the verb of the sentence must precede the subject,
so <QeH> must be the main verb.
I hope this didn't confuse you further...
>bIghHa' yIjaH.
>-Go to jail.
This is really nicely done! I only have one comment: we know from the
first paragraphs on page 28 of the KD that some verbs (we know <ghoS> for
certain) have the concept of "towards" included in them. I suspect that
<jaH> would be considered one of these verbs, but since we are not sure
which verbs do and do not (other than <ghoS>), it might be better to take
the option of including the -Daq, as the KD says that this would be
redundant, but not incorrect:
bIghHa'Daq yIjaH.
I applaud you on getting your imperative prefix correct! maj!
>De'wI' 'aHmey Suy'a'.
>-Computer Wares Inc. (This is the closest approximation to the name of my
>employer that I could come.
Actaully, I think this was very well-done. I just might put a -mey on
<De'wI'> for clarity, but what you have is perfectly fine. VERY nice
re-cast to get your meaning accross! I always get scared when people try to
translate things like company names, but this was well-done! majQa'!
>wejmaH Soch ben bogh be'nI'wI'.
>-My sister is thirty seven years old. (My sister was born thirty seven
>years ago.)
majQa'!
>beqlI' HIv beqwI'.
>-My crewman attacks your creman.
Very nice!
>beqlI' bergh'a'?
>-Is your crewman irritable?
This is the same problem you had up above with <bergh>; I'll let you correct
it as an exercise. {{:)
>yIberghbe'qa'.
>-Don't be irritable again.
Oh, this is VERY nice! You only made one error: on page 47, -Qo' is
desribed as being used on imperatives; as far as we know, you cannot use
-be' on an imperative, as yo have done here--you MUST use -Qo':
yIberghqa'Qo'
Please also note that I changed the position of -Qo', as it must go last,
excpet for any type 9 suffixes pressent.
>be'nalwI' 'oH SoH.
>-You are my wife.
You don't need <'oH> in there. I think you were trying to do a "to be"
construction, but you do not have to use <'oH> in it... you can use any
appropriate pronoun: <jIH, ghaH, 'oH, ghaH, maH, tlhIH, chaH, bIH>. In
this case, just <SoH> is enough:
be'nalwI' SoH.
>DaH qabach!
>-Shoot me now!
Actually, here you have said "Now I shoot you". qa- is the "I/you" prefix.
What you have here is an imperative (which you got the prefix right on
before...), and you need to use the special set of pronouns for imperatives,
on page 34. In this case, you want "(imperative) you-me", which is HI-:
DaH HIbach
Since I am not sure if <bach> means "to shoot" as in, "to project a
projectile" or "to shoot" as in "to project a projectile AT <someone>", I
will accept this as valid, until someone more knowledgeable can clarify.
>batlh baSwI' vIleghbe'.
>-I don't see the honorable metal.
Um... <baSwI'> is "my metal", assuming metal is capable of speech. I really
don't know why you have the -wI' on there at all; <baS> is "metal". Also,
your English has "honourable" as an adjective, while your Klingon is saying
"the honour's my(?) metal". To say "honourable metal", I would recommend
using the berb "to be honourbale" from the addendum, <quv>:
baS quv vIleghbe'
Although I have no idea how a metal could be "honourable"?
>yIbaHQo'!
>-Don't Fire!
maj!
>pagh batlh chonob.
>-You give me no honor.
If I remember right, we have had examples of indirect objects done this way,
so this was done right. {{:)
>Dujrajmey lubavtaH Dujmajmey.
>-Our ships are circling [orbiting] your ships.
lu- is only used when you have a plural subject, and a singular object.
Here, you have a plural subject and a plural object, so you need a null
prefix. Also, watych your prefix order! -mey is a type 2, and both -raj
and -maj are type 4s, so the -meyhas to go first:
Dujmeyraj bavtaH Dujmeymaj
Well done, otherwise!
>naDev yIba'!
>-Sit here!
maj!
>mInwIj DabachQo'!
>-Don't shoot my eye!
Again, well done, except that you have to have an imperative prefix:
mInwIj yIbachQo'
>qatlh chobechmoHtaH?
>-Why do you make me suffer?
majQa'! Well done! You avoided another moderately common error: that of
putting -'a' on a sentence which has a question word in it (which is
incorrect). What you have here is a very good example of a "why?"
question... not to mention a good use of -moH! Very nice!
>begh yIchu'!
>-Activate deflectors!
maj!
>beHlIj HInob.
>-Give me your rifle.
maj!
>cha'maH Soch ben jIbogh.
>-I was born 27 years ago.
maj!
>bIbep'e' yImev!
>-Stop complaining!
Very nice! I see you made an anaology between <bIjatlh 'e' yImev> for "shut
up!", and made a similar structure--that's using your head they way it was
intended to be used! Very well done!
>jIbelHa'.
>-I am displeased.
Good use of -Ha'!
>nuq bellIj.
>-What is your complaint.
Um... not quite. <bel> is pleasure... you are asking "what is your
pleasure?". While you might be going for a Klingon-idiomatic expression, I
would recommend against this; it sounds like you are asking someone what
pleases them, not what is bother them. If you typoed <bep>, that is still
incorrect. Although <bep> is both a noun and a verbv with similar meanings,
one of which for the verb is "to complain", the noun <bep> still only means
"agony", not "complaint". Rather than try to convert the verb <bep> to a
noun, why not re-cat this slightly to use this verb as a verb:
qatlh bIbep?
"Why are you complaining?"
I think that will have essentially the same effect as your original english
translation.
>bIQ vItlhutlhnIS.
>-I need to drink the water.
maj.
>bIQtIq vIleghbe'.
>-I don't see the river.
maj.
>bIQ'a' vIlegh.
>-I see the ocean.
maj.
>jIbIr.
>-I am cold.
Good.
>chobIrmoH.
>-Yoy make me cold.
Nice use of -moH!
>bIbIt'a'?
>-Are you nervous.
Good.
>bIbIvqa'nIS'a'?
>-Are you going to break [the rules] again?
Um... kinda. While your Klingon will express the concept you stated in the
English, it is a bit different from the English. The back-translation of
what you have here in Klingon is "Do you need to break the rules again?",
i.e., the person you are addressing HAD to break the rules at some point,
and may very well have to do so again in the immediate future--a very
similar concept, but slightly (and perhaps significantly) different. To
have the Klingon match exactly the English translation you gave, just remove
the -nIS.
>bIr bobcho'wIj.
>-My module is cold.
I have no idea when you would say this, but it is grammatically correct. {{:)
>bobcho'wIj DabIrmoH.
>-You make my module cold.
Same comment as above. Again, you seem to have a good grasp of -moH!
>DaHjaj bIbogh.
>-You were born today.
maj.
>DaH jIboH.
>-Now I am impatient.
Good again.
>yIboHQo'.
>-Don't be impatient.
Very nice.
>mubojtaH be'nal'wI'.
>-My wife nags me continuously.
Your grammar is correct... I wouldn't say this to your wife, though... she
might nag you some more. {{:)
>qaHIv bong.
>-I accidentally attacked you.
Ah, you were on such a nice roll! {{:(
<bong> is an adverbial. Adverbials ALWAYS go at the *beginning* of the
sentence; again, you have all the right words, and you constructed your
words right--you just put them in the wrong order:
bong qaHIv
>bID be'nI'wI'.
>-My half sister. ??
Hm. I am not sure how a Klingon would express this concept. This almost
sounds like your sister was in a battle, and took a rather dramatic (and
devistating!) death-blow, right through the middle.
I really don't want to comment on how to translate this further other than
to throw in the comment that, with the way Klingons feel about family (and
how easy it is for them to get both married and divorced!), it is entirely
possible that they do not care about "halves": you are either a sibling, or
you are not. iIf you have a parent in common, then you are a brother and
sister...
Please note that the above paragraph is PURELY MY OWN SPECULATION, and is
very much open for debate. {{:)
>bIH'e' vIneH.
>-I want them.
I don't know that the -'e' is required. I read this as "I want THEM"
(probably accompanied with a pointing finger and appropriately intense
expression {{:) ). If you are trying to do something with the pronoun <'e'>
used between sentences here, then you are WAY off, as <'e'> is a seperate
word, is only used to join sentences, and <neH> is one of the few verbs that
doesn't use it, to boot... but I don't think that is what you are doing.
Please also note that some would read your having <bIH> there as added
emphasis to begin with, as just <vIneH> would convey this concept (albeit it
could be confused with he/she/it, as apposed to "them"), and that adding
-'e' could be construed as even MORE emphasis. It's grammatically correct
as written, though.
>bIghHa'vam vImej.
>-I am leaving this jail.
Well done. Perhaps you want -lI' on <vImej> to show that you are "in the
process" of leaving?
>bIQvam yItlhutlh.
>-Drink this water.
maj.
>bIbuD.
>-You are lazy.
Nice.
>jIbuDbe'.
>-I am not lazy.
Nice again.
>chobojtaH.
>-You are nagging me.
Another thing you might not want to say to your wife... but said correctly. {{:)
>jIbup!
>-I quit!
Correct.
>DaH yIbupQo'!
>-Don't quit now!
Nice!
>HIbuQQo'!
>-Don't threaten me!
Very nice!
>boQwI' DaHoHQo'.
>-Don't kill my assistant.
Ah, you fell off your other "roll"! This is another imperative, and
requires an imperative prefix: <yIHoHQo'>.
>qaboQqangbe'.
>-I'm not willing to help you.
Okay, I will let this one go through as okay...
There IS a verb "to help" in Klingon: <QaH>, but <boQ> could be just as
valid here; just be aware that your English is not an exact translation of
your Klingon.
>DaH HIboQ.
>-Help me now!
Same comment as above.
>bortaSwIj DabotQo'.
>-Don't block (prevent) my revenge.
This is very odd... about half the time, you are getting your imperative
prefixes right... the other half the time, you are using the regular
prefixes when you should not be. This is one of the latter cases: it
should be <yIbotQo'>. I don't see a pattern yet as far as when you are
remembering and when you are not, so I am not sure if you are just having
trouble seeing when you have an imperative, or if you just keep forgetting
to USE those prefixes. In either case, it should be <yIbotQo'>.
>bortaSlIj DaboSchugh, qaboQ jIneH.
>-If you collect your revenge, I want to help you.
Oh, very, very well done! I have only two comments:
1. The same comment I made before about <boQ> and <QaH>.
2. You have ONE grammar error. When you have a sentence-as-object, as you
do with "I want (that) I help you", the second Klingon verb (the first
Englsih one: in this case, <neH>) has to have a verb prefix with an "it"
object. Why? Because what you are really saying here is "I help you; I
want that (whole previous sentence)". The "that" in the second sentence is
an object; it makes the whole previous sentence the object of this next
sentence. In most Klingon sentences, we use the <'e'> or <net> pronouns to
show this concept; however, as you correctly showed here, <neH> is one of
the verbs of exception, which does NOT use <'e'>. It still has to have the
matching prefix, though, which would be vI-, not jI-:
qaboQ vIneH
This was actually a very MINOUR error in a very COMPLICATED sentence; give
your self SEVERAL pats on the back for this one! majQa'!
>reboQqang.
>-I am willing to assist you (all).
re- is "we-y'all". This is "WE are willing to assist all of you".
I think you want Sa-.
>chobotQo'!
>-Don't block me!
Imperative again:
HIbotQo'!
>chobotchugh, bortaSmaj wIboS.
>-If you block us, we will collect our revenge.
cho- is "you-me". "you-us" would be ju- (or nu-, if the "you" is more than
one person).
>This one is Chang from the end of ST6:
><Kirk> choleghlaH. qaleghlaH'a'?
>-I can see you Kirk. Can you see me?
Ooooh... almost! It looks like that by the time you got to the end of this
list, you had your cho- and qa- confused (that's okay; I sometimes confuse
them, too, because they are so commonly used). cho- is "you-me", and qa- is
"I-you". You have the prefixes backwards on your verbs, but everything else
is *fine*:
<Kirk> qaleghlaH. choleghlaH'a'?
Thanks for flagging "Kirk" as a non-Klingon word!
However lengthy this was, I have to say it was VERY WELL DONE! You kept
things simple, which made your errors (and usually, why you seemed to be
making them) very easy to point out, and correct--when you made them at all!
Most of you sentences were very clear and most of your problems were rather
small ones.
I applaud you! majQa'!
>Perry J. Brulotte
--tQ
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet (Klingon speaker and net junkie!)
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...