tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 05 10:41:39 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhoghtay
>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:32:15 -0800 (PST)
>From: "QalI' ma" <[email protected]>
>
>I was beginning to think that I would never hear back.
>This may get long.
>
>The first line was:
>> >vajpu' cha' tlhInganpu' batlh roSbogh tlhogtay wIleghmeH naDev maH.
>We are here to witness the rite of marriage binding two honourable
>Klingon warriors.
>I can see how vajpu' and tlhInganpu' conflict, but I am not certain how
>to enter the "honourable".
>As for roSbogh, I have no idea where I found that word. I believe I was
>trying to say "tie together" instead of "bind", but that still does not
>explain the translation.
>Should it then be:
>thlIngan SuvwI'pu' cha' quv law' muv tlhoghtay wIleghmeH naDev maH.
Lessee... The cha' numeral should go first, and if we are seeing the
ceremony join them, we are seeing a whole sentence, so we need 'e' to link
it:
cha' tlhIngan SuvwI'pu' quv muv tlhoghtay 'e' wIleghmeH naDev maH.
What is the "law'" doing there? There are only two warriors, right?
>> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> Also note that in KGT we're told that "vaj" only means a warrior in
>> general, sort of the Platonic Form of a warrior, not a specific
>> person.
>Where?
p. 50.
>> "The marriage ceremony joins these Klingons and their families, and > the marriage ceremony strengthens the Empire. Who represents these > warriors?"
>That is the line. Would it be:
>tlhInganpu'vam qorDu'may'chaj je muv tlhoghtay 'ej wo' HoSmoH
>tlhoghtay. SuvwI'pu'vam 'oS 'Iv?
That sounds okay...
>> >geron jIH, 'ej QanDuj'Sogh yojneS taI Qorn vI'oS. targh pa'taH naDev > >ghaHtaH!
>>
>> I'm assuming "QanDuj'Sogh yojneS taI Qorn" is all the name and/or
>> non-tlhIngan-Hol titles, since I can't really parse it meaningfully (I > see "Sogh" in it, and "Duj", but that's about it).
>I do not know if you are at all familiar with a publication by FASA of a
>Klingon role-playing game system, but it has been a reference for our
>fan club in some of the cultural aspects. We have been using their
>system of rank and titles for so long that I am not inclined to make
>changes, whether or not it conforms to tlhIngan Hol. The explanation
>for this that I will use is that these titles are from an ancient
>Imperial Dialect.
>Qan - those who protect, The Emperor's Guard, divisional distinction
>Duj - of the Navy, HIv - of the Marines
>Sogh - rank, Lieutenant
>-neS - an honourific, used in formal titles to announce or when
>speaking of another warrior
>taI, SutaI - familial honourific titles that will change with one's
>position in the House or Line
OK, fair enough. I don't think this does conform to tlhIngan Hol (I really
don't like the -neS on a noun), but so what. It's a fan thing, you have to
stick with the local conventions.
>> "pa'taH" doesn't make any sense to me; "pa'" is a noun meaning "room" > or a slightly special noun meaning "there"; in neither case can it > take the verb-suffix "-taH." I don't see what "targh" is doing > either; the whole last sentence is puzzling to me. I can see "he's > here!" at the end, I guess an oblique order to force him forward?
>I am sorry for the misspelling, it should be petaQ:
>Here is the ^&*($ dog!
Hmm. Remember that petaQ is an epithet in itself. A "petaQ targh" sounds
to me more like a targ who's the pet of a petaQ. If I were insulting
someone, I'd probably call him a petaQ and leave it at that.
>> >yoj: mulaQ puQlod, yoj jIH, 'e' be'vam 'Iprar jIghoS.
>I am yoj, son of mulaQ, and I come to oathbind to this woman.
>
>> What's the "'e'" doing there? I see "*'Iprar" as an attempt to > compound "'Ip" (swear (v) or oath (n)) with "rar" (connect (v)),
>Again, referring to another obscure resource, 'Iprar means "oathbind"
>which is similar to swearing into a lodge, club, or as
>"blood-brothers". There are different types of oathbindings from those
>mentioned above to becoming a priest, taking a bar exam, entering the
>military, etc.
>I am not certain if your translations would be appropriate, but they
>have given me something to think on.
OK. Here I'm less willing to say "it's a fan thing," because it isn't.
The names were names, that's what people would need to hear. But
"oathbind" is an English term, and to insist that it must translate
syllable for syllable into another language is silly, I think.
>> >qIrI: qorDu'vo' QIntar, qIrI jIH, 'e' loDvam 'Iprar jIghoS.
>>
>> I'd order it "QIntar qorDu' qIrI jIH" (or after KGT, "matay' QIntar > qorDu' jIH je")
>Again, where in KGT? I have read most of it, but I do not recall where
>this is.
Argh, can't find it.
~mark