tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 24 14:05:58 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Some Sayings
David Trimboli wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 12, 1997 11:54 PM, [email protected] on behalf of Jim
> LeMaster wrote:
>
> >SuStel:
>
> > I am trying my hand at my first tlhIngan Hol translations.
> > I selected a few sayings that I use quite often.
> >
> > In war, there are dirty fighters and losers.
> > noH HIghwI'pu' je lujwI'pu' pa'.
>
> To say "in war," you cannot just say "war." You also cannot use {-Daq} here I
> think, since fighting a war is not a physical location.
I misinterpreted the line from TKW and thought the "in" was assumed.
However, I do not understand the differnce between TKW's "noH
ghoblu'DI'" and your "noH ghoblu'taHvIS" for "In war." could you explain
it.
>
> You've got the right words for "dirty fighters" and "losers." Good. However,
> whenever you use a noun conjunction ({je}, {joq}, {ghap}), the conjunction
> must always go at the end of the noun phrase. So, "dirty fighters and losers"
> comes out as {HIghwI'pu' lujwI'pu' je}.
>
Sorry about that. TKD said it was for between nouns, so that was where
I put it.
> When you want to say "there is" or "there are," you <use the> word which does exactly what you're trying to do:
> {tu'lu'}. . . . Just stick it after whatever it is that one
> finds.
>
> ghoblu'taHvIS HIghwI'pu' lujwI'pu' je tu'lu'.
Should be "noH ghoblu'taHvIS HIghwI'pu' lujwI'pu' je tu'lu' " shouldn't
it?
>
> > Works for me!
> > myQap!
>
> Huh? I suppose that "y" was supposed to be a "u".
Yeah - typo'd due to input at 2330 hrs.
>However, *{muQap} means
> "if functions me." This is pretty nonsensical.
>
AH HA! You got a typo too!
I picked "muQap" <It functions me!> as a close approximation of "This
thing (plan,decision,course of action) works for me!" which is my
interpretation of "Works for me!"
Would "muQapmeH" work in this situation? I am trying for two goals:
(1) correct tlhIngan Hol usage; (2) a short exclamatory statement
(rather like the one it comes from) ((Clipped Klingon?)).
Or do I need somthing like: Hevam Qap. <That course works.>
>
> > A man should know his limitations.
> > vehmeyDoj Sov loD.
>
> Watch your spelling! Let's see, you meant {veHmeyDaj}. Hmmm . . . I wonder
> if a person can have {veH} "boundaries"? For a moment, let's assume that he
> can.
>
> Is there any reason that only men should know their limitations? In English,
> the male gender is often grammatically neutered, but in Klingon we don't have
> this problem. I suggest that you either choose a gender-independent term,
> like {ghot}, or use the indefinite subject again ({-lu'}).
>
> {veHmeyDaj Sov ghot} This so far is just "A person knows his/her boundaries."
> Well, that's not necessarily true. We're trying to say they *need* to know
> them. That's the suffix {-nIS}.
>
> veHmeyDaj SovnIS ghot
> A person needs to know his/her boundaries.
>
> I'm not thrilled with {veH} here, though. It sounds like their personal-space
> bubble or something. Let's see, there's the word {vuS} "limit" . . .
>
> ghot vuSbogh Dochmey'e' SovnIS ghaH.
> A person needs to know the things which limit him.
>
> A bit tougher, but I think a little better. Depending on your context, you
> could substitute other words in for {Doch}, like {ghu'} or {wanI'}.
>
I don't agree here. I am trying to express that a warrior must know HIS
OWN (internal) limits. Your statement, to me, seems more suited to
knowledge about external limits. I could see that as a statement used
more like this:
noH ghoblu'taHvIS, ghot vuSbogh Dochmey'e' SovnIS ghaH.
In war, a person needs to know the things which limit him.
--or--
ghot vuSbogh Dochmey'e' SovnIS ghaH may'yotlh ghoblu'taHvIS.
A person should know those things in a battlefield which limit him.
However, I think I need a word for "limitations" better than either just
limits or boundaries (you saw it as 'personal space' not 'the limits of
his abilities'). Still working from here, can vuS and wI' be combined
into vuSwI' for 'limitation' here?
ghot SvnIS vuSwI'meyDaj.
A person should know his limitations.
Or should I just go the long way 'round and use:
ghot SovnIS veHmeymo' laHmeyDaj.
A person should know the boundaries due to his abilities.
> > (Popeye's philosophy) Iam what I am.
> > nuq jIratlh jIratlh. (I remain what I remain.)
>
> Ack!
OK. That was a stretch. I really didn't think that nuq could be used
that way, but was hoping for a suggestion of a substitute. How about:
jIratlh ghotvetlh reH jIratlhbogh.
I remain that person which I will always remain.
How did I do so far?
jIratlh tuq l'maSto'r Y'jImbo puqloD warDIn.
I remain Yojimbo, son of Warden, of the House LeMaster.