tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 13 20:10:41 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Hov veSmey

February 13, 1997 5:39 PM EST, jatlh Perry J. Brulotte:

> vengHom 'el yav Duj.

Why {vengHom}?  Mos Eisley was probably the biggest urban area on Tattooine!  
{veng} would be fine.

> yav Duj ngaS cha' qoq, qanbogh loD, Qupbogh loD je.

The most glaring error here is the reversal of subject and object around the 
verb {ngaS}.  The two droids don't contain the speeder.

{yav Duj} is an acceptable substitute for "land-speeder," I suppose, although 
it could be equally applicable to a car with wheels.  It doesn't really matter 
here, as the speeder isn't the point.

While you *can* say {qanbogh loD} and {Qupbogh loD}, you don't have to.  Use 
can use qualitative verbs like {qan} and {Qup} as adjectives, coming after the 
noun they modify.

cha' qoq, loD qan, loD Qup je ngaS yav Duj.

> yav Duj ghoS 'avwI'pu'.

This is a common omission: you need the suffix {lu-} with third-person plural 
subject and singular object.

yav Duj lughoS 'avwI'pu'.

> jatlh DevwI', >ngu'bogh nav vIleghnIS.<

This is good.  However, let me make a suggestion: {ngu'meH nav}.  This means 
"paper for the purpose of identifying."  See TKD section 6.2.4 on purpose 
clauses.  This goes along the same lines as {DevmeH paq} "guidebook."

Again, there is nothing wrong with what you said.

> 'avwI' legh Qupbogh loD.  bItlaw'.

Again, you can simply say {'avwI' legh loD Qup}.

> 'avwI' legh qanbogh loD.

Again, {loD qan}.

> jatlh, >ngu'bogh navDaj yIleghnISbe'.<

{yIleghnISbe'} doesn't make any sense.  Obi-Wan is making a statement of fact, 
"You don't need to see his identification," but you've used an imperative 
prefix here.  Don't.  Use the normal suffix.

ngu'meH navDaj DaleghnISbe'.

> ghopDaj nechmoH jatlhDI'.

Ooohhh!  Very clever use of {nech}!  You might consider using {loQ} as an 
adverbial for this sentence.  Obi-Wan's hand movement was not very obvious; it 
was slight.

> latlh 'avwI'pu' legh DevwI'.

I've mentioned in another recent post that we don't have any evidence that you 
can use {latlh} to modify another noun like this.  Try to find another way to 
do it.  Here's one idea:

tlhejwI'Daj legh 'avwI'.
The guard sees his companions.

We're kinda stretching the meaning of {legh}, now.  He may see them, but 
that's not the point at all.  Perhaps

tlhejwI'DajDaq tlhe' 'avwI'
The guard turns to his companions.

Or perhaps you can just dispense with the whole thing altogether:

tlhejwI'DajvaD jatlh 'avwI' . . .

> jatlh, >ngu'bogh navDaj wIleghnISbe'.<
> jatlh qanbogh loD, >qoqpu'vam tInejbe'.<

If this is really *meant* to be a command, you cannot use {-be'}.  Read TKD 
section 4.3 carefully and you'll find that with a command, you must use 
{-Qo'}, not {-be'}.

Now, {qoqpu'vam tInejQo'} means "Don't search for these droids."  I still 
think that since the Force is used by Obi-Wan only in a passive sort of way 
(un-Klingon, but true), you shouldn't translate this one as a command.  But if 
I say

qoqpu'vam bonejlI'be'.
You aren't looking for these droids.

it doesn't seem to have the right force.  Not to worry!  There's an answer!  
(By the way, notice the {-lI'} suffix I've added?  It does *wonders* for the 
sentence.)

qoqpu'vam'e' bonejlI"be'.
As for these droids, you're not searching for them.

It emphasizes that the droids are the point of the sentence.  "You're not 
searching for THESE DROIDS (some other droids, obviously, but not these)."

> jatlh 'avwI', >qoqpu'vam DInejbe'.<

And I'd also alter this one to match:

qoqpu'vam'e' DInejlI'be'.

Note that your sentence is not wrong, but I feel that it's missing some of the 
correct expression.

> jatlh qanbogh loD, >mejlaH.<

Klingon-like, but unfaithful, especially when we have the noun {malja'}.

jatlh loD qan, <malja'Daj ta' net chaw'>
The old man says, "He's permitted to accomplish his business."

> Qupbogh loD jatlh 'avwI'.  >bImejlaH.<

And, of course, the Stormtrooper will follow suit:

loD QupvaD jatlh 'avwI', <malja'lIj Data' net chaw'.>

Don't forget the {-vaD}!

> jatlh qanbogh loD, >ghoS.<

Nice.  I'm sure you used clipped Klingon intentionally, and it's quite 
appropriate here.

> ghopDaj joq 'avwI'.  >ghoS.  ghoS.<

Not quite.  Since in TKD we get two examples of {joq}, {joqwI'} "flag" and 
{SuSmo' joqtaH} "it's fluttering in the breeze," we know that the *subject* of 
{joq} must be the thing that is fluttering.  The guard is not fluttering, he 
is "causing" his hand to flutter, so you need to use {-moH}:

ghopDaj joqmoH 'avwI'.

----------------------------------------------------------
tlhaQchu' lut 'ay'vam.  batlh 'oH Damughta'!

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97123.0

Back to archive top level