tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 25 11:39:24 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Some Sayings
David Trimboli wrote:
>
> [email protected] on behalf of Jim LeMaster wrote:
> > > > In war, there are dirty fighters and losers.
> > > > noH HIghwI'pu' je lujwI'pu' pa'.
> > >
> > 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.
> {-DI'} says that one thing happens as soon another thing happens. That other
> thing is usually pretty instantaneous, or its duration is not relevant.
> {-vIS} means that something happens *while* something else is continuously happening.
Thank you, that clears up a lot.
>>> 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.
> No, it says that they *join* nouns, and are placed after the final noun. Read TKD 5.3.
I stand corrected!
> > Would "muQapmeH" work in this situation?
>
> "In order that it functions me" is just as bad.
>
I translate that as "It functions me for. or It functions for me." (TKD,
'English Index to Klingon Afflixes, section 3, Verb suffixes).
But, I'll drop it beyond this. The problem here seems to be a
philosophical one (You: "maj is all that is needed.") and I'm not
anywhere near fluent enough to argue grammar details.
> > Or do I need somthing like: Hevam Qap. <That course works.>
>
> Don't forget the Obj-Verb-Subj sentence order. That would have to be {Qap
> Hevam} "this course succeeds." However, {He} refers to a physical route.
> What you want is {Qap nabvam}. Still, you don't *know* the plan is going to
> succeed . . . this is why I think {maj} is best.
>
> > > > A man should know his limitations.
> > > > vehmeyDoj Sov loD.
> > > [...]
> > 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.
>
> Aha! Now we have some context to play with!
>
> laHDaj SovnIS ghot.
> laHDaj vuSlu'bogh SovnIS ghot.
>
> > 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.
>
> Not bad, though we're still talking about "things."
>
> > --or--
> > ghot vuSbogh Dochmey'e' SovnIS ghaH may'yotlh ghoblu'taHvIS.
> > A person should know those things in a battlefield which limit him.
>
> A person does not "make war the battlefield." Now you can use {-Daq}:
>
> may' yotlhDaq ghoblu'taHvIS
>
> > 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?
>
> I wouldn't understand it. Try not to force words to be translated like that.
> Use them as they are. Better yet, start recasting your idea.
>
> Hoch SuvwI' vuSlu'. yaj'eghnIS Hoch.
> Every warrior is limited. Everyone needs to understand himself.
>
> > 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.
>
> When {-mo'} is on a noun, it should go before the object, or before the verb
> if there is no object. This is just like most other Type 5 noun suffixed
> nouns. And remember: {veHmeymo'} is "because of boundaries," not "because of
> his abilities." I still don't like {veH} for this, though.
>
Perhaps, another context, (I'm <again> probably trying to run rather
than walk), how would I say:
A person needs to know how his own abilities will/would limit his
success(es).
ghot SovnIS vuS laHmeymo'Daj yaymeyDaj. (???)
> > > > (Popeye's philosophy) Iam what I am.
> You're beginning to sound like you want to say
>
> not jIchoH
> I never change.
>
Close, once again, it is an oblique reference to my *character* or my
public/private personna. Another way to say this, in English, is "My
actions and decisions do not change from day to day or in private versus
public." Or, shorter, "What you see is what you get." I would see a
Klingon answering the question: "What sort of being are you?" with "I am
what I am, a Klingon!"
> > jIratlh tuq l'maSto'r Y'jImbo puqloD warDIn.
> > I remain Yojimbo, son of Warden, of the House LeMaster.
>
> I *know* you cannot use {ratlh} like this!
In English, we use the honorific "I remain", which is probably short for
"I remain your (friend, servant, etc.) What wouls be the Klingon
equivalent?
Y'jImbo ghojwI' mul.