tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 29 20:09:21 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - using a betleH
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC - using a betleH
- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 23:10:38 -0400
At 05:48 AM 9/11/96 -0700, Chet Braun wrote:
>When using a betleH,
>the handles are intended only for you,
>the edges clearly for your enemy.
>
>betleH Dalo'DI'
I really hate that "when" translation for -DI'. The suffix -DI' really
means "as soon as". "As soon as I see you again, I will kill you." In this
sentence, I mean that the event of my seeing you happens, I will initiate
killing you, and my seeing you again will end. That is the proper use of -DI'.
What you are really saying here is not "as soon as the event of using a
betlEh occurs, the handle is for the user", as you have as written. What
you really mean is that every time you use a betleH, the handle is for
you... and that it is STILL for you while you are using it. The suffix you
want here is -taHvIS. Yes, I know the English translation has "when" in
it--"when" can do double-duty in some cases (and this is one!) for "while"
in English--not so in Klingon:
betleH Dalo'taHvIS
Otherwise, this is fine.
>SoHvaD neH bIH Daqpu''e' 'uchlu'
Eeewww....
That's not a comment on your grammar... it's a comment on the construction.
Klingon does not have a verb "to be", although it does have this method of
making a comparison between two nouns. Unfortunately, since English
speakers tend to use "to be" a lot, it is very often over-used. I suspect
that this may be a mis-use of it.
Oh, and you need a -bogh on <'uchlu'>.
Why not recast your thought slightly:
Daqmey 'uchlu'bogh DaHev SoH
"*YOU* receive the handles"
Please note that I also corrected you slightly with your plural suffix.
-pu' is used only for beings capable of speech; -mey is the general
pluralization.
Anytime you find something awkward to translate, re-casting it a bit might
yield something a bit easier to chew. I think this captures your original
meaning fairly well, but only you can decide that for certain.
>jaghlI'vaD bIHchu' HeHpu''e'
Similarly, why not:
HeH Hev jaghlI''e'.
"Your *enemy* receives the blade."
If you want to reverse the emphasis from the subject to the object, move the
-'e' to the object ("handle"/"blade") and remove the <SoH> in the first part.
>I'm using a previous suggestion for 'handle'; [Daq 'uchlu'] but I'm not sure
>were to put some of the suffixes.
Well, that phrase needed a -bogh, but that's fine.
>BTW, this bit of wisdom may seem obvious at first but if you look closely
>at Star Trek martial arts Paramount doesn't seem too cognizant of it.
Heh. This doesn't surprise me...
>HetaQ
--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...