tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 25 08:37:13 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James]
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James]
- Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:36:47 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:34:03 -0800 (PST) James Coupe
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "William H.
> Martin" <[email protected]> writes
...
> >Meanwhile, if she died, "I won't visit that woman again,"
> >becomes {be'vetlh vISuchbe'.} I'm not refusing to visit her
> >again. I have lost the opportunity to do so. In the future, I
> >will not visit her again.
>
> Would it also that possible to say:
>
> be'vetlh vISuchlaHbe'
This works, but it misses the difference in meaning that I
intend. If the woman pisses me off and I say, "I won't visit her
again," then the translation is {be'vetlh vISuchqa'Qo'.} I won't
see her because I refuse to see her.
Meanwhile, if she is mad at me and I could visit her again, but
the experience would simply be unpleasant and as much as I'd
like to see her again, I do not wish to cause her unpleasantry,
"I won't visit her again," becomes {be'vetlh vISuchqa'be'.} I
have the ability, and I am not refusing to visit her again. I am
merely evaluating that such a visit will not occur.
...
> >I think you are getting a little fixated on translating the word
> >"that". Think about your whole sentence and its meaning. If you
> >become to attached to each word in a sentence, you will force
> >yourself into grammar that does not serve to translate your
> >meaning.
> >
> >In other words, when you see that you have a problem with the
> >word "that", consider the whole sentence again to decide how
> >important the meaning of that word is. There may be a way of
> >expressing that meaning that better fits Klingon. In this case,
> >the "that" you want is something you accomplish. So, what does
> >one accomplish? One accomplishes tasks. What is the word for
> >"task"? It doesn't matter that the word "task" did not exist in
> >your English. It was implied. In English, "that" is a pronoun.
> >In Klingon, "that" is a noun suffix, so you need to express the
> >noun to use it. "That" is also a pronoun {'e'}, but it is highly
> >specialized in its use. If the "that" you want to translate
> >doesn't fit the restricted {'e'} definition, you need an
> >explicit noun to place the {-vetlh} suffix to.
> >
>
> So, if I want to say "that" on it's own, then I should probably just not
> use a pronoun then
>
> So, instead of saying "I've blown that" after an interview, I'd say (in
> Klingon) "I've blown that interview"
>
> *interview*vetlh vIlujpu'
bIlughchu'.
...
> >You can add suffixes to pronouns, but you cannot do so
> >mindlessly. Pronouns are not quite nouns. They function as
> >nouns, except when they are functioning as verbs and some noun
> >suffixes really don't work on pronouns. Type 4 noun suffixes
> >singularly do not work with pronouns. I mean, how would you
> >translate {jIHDaj} or {SoHvam}? It just doesn't work.
> >
>
> Oh, obviously. I just wanted to know whether it was at all possible.
> Actually, looking at jIHDaj, there's a song in Britain by (I think) "M
> People" a few years back called "You've got to search for the hero
> inside yourself". If I was searching for the hero inside myself, I
> reckon I could use that since as the klingon would go
>
> inside-myself hero I-search
> jIHDaj Sub vISucH
Yuck. Nope. This does not nearly work. Just look into the
neuralizer and -FLASH- You never saw this happen. Do not look
back.
> Which seems to fit with Okrand's usage of direct and indirect objects in
> KGT (like latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr vIqang - I (subject) pour the cold
> bloodwine (object) into another glass (indirect object, I think)).
It really helps to cite page numbers so we can look up the
larger context in examples like this. Anyway, {latlh HIVje'Daq}
is not an indirect object. It is a locative. It simply tells you
where the action of the verb occurs.
> Although the entire phrase is too idiomatic to translate (it would
> probably translate as "Be courageous!" or something), I can imagine
> there being times to use it.
>
> >> --
> >> tlhIbwI'
> >>
> >> (and being constantly self depreciated isn't such a bad thing - it might help
> >to
> >> remind me not to get smug)
> >
> >Do you start your diary entries with, "Sorry to bother you
> >again, but..."?
> >
>
> All the time! }};)
>
> Anyway, it's only fictional. And until I worked out how to say it, I
> never realised your name was formed the same way (one who conquers, or
> conqueror from KGT).
>
> >charghwI', ru' taghwI' pabpo'
> >Temporary Beginner's Grammarian, December 20-30
> >
> >
>
> --
> tlhIbwI'
charghwI', taghwI' pabpo' ru'
Temporary Beginner's Grammarian, December 20-30