tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 28 16:05:04 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Phrases
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Phrases
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 97 23:37:28 UT
January 28, 1997 5:48 AM EST, jatlh Perry J. Brulotte:
> The first comes from the Michael Crichton book called "Rising Sun". It is
> a Japanese saying:
>
> noH 'oH malja'.
> [Business is war.]
{noH 'oH malja''e'}. Don't forget that {-'e'}.
> These are a few from various sources:
>
> ghe''or 'oH noH.
> [War is hell.]
{ghe''or 'oH noH'e'}. Don't try saying this to any Klingons! They'd probably
kill you!
> waH noH.
> [War is costly.]
I know charghwI''s new words file says it's {wagh}, but I *really* think it's
supposed to be {wagh}. Otherwise, this is fine.
> waHchugh noH 'ej ghe''or 'oHchugh noH, vaj waHnIS ghe''or.
> [If war is costly and war is hell then hell must be costly.]
waghchugh noH 'ej ghe'or 'oHchugh noH'e', vaj waghnIS ghe''or.
Again, avoid uttering something like this in front of any Klingons!
> mujchugh vay', muj 'oH.
> [If anything can go wrong, it will.]
You've written "If something is wrong, it is wrong." What happened to the
"can"? Also, this proverb seems to talk more about something *going* wrong
than just being wrong.
mujchoHlaHchugh vay', mujchoHbej.
If something can begin to misfunction, it will certainly misfunction.
I don't know if I like {muj}, though. I might replace it with something else.
Perhaps {QapHa'}.
What's with the defeatest attitude here? not jegh tlhInganpu'!
> DaH \_Kansas_\Daq SoHbe'.
> [You're not in Kansas anymore.] This is a loose translation. The best I
> could come up with.
It is grammatical.
> HurDaq bIjaH DaneH'a'?
> [Would you like to step outside?]
This is correct, although if it's meant as a prelude to a fight, I doubt it
would be spoken by any Klingon!
> DaHjaj nuqDaq bIjaH DaneH? ... or ... nuqDaq DaHjaj bIjaH DaneH?
> [Where do you want to go today?] Okay, it's a little tacky, but I've been
> wanting to actually sit down and translate this.
When wondering whether to use the locative or the time reference first, use
the time. TKD's addendum mentions this.
Holtej has recently pointed out that sentences like this one are actually a
question-as-object, a construction which, while not explicitly forbidded, is
rather distasteful to me, and Okrand has implied before that it may not occur.
(You should see me trying to get Nick to change all of his!) Your first
sentence is {nuqDaq bIjaH?}, and then you're adding the second sentence,
{DaneH}.
The obvious response to this is realize that this question is intended to
determine where it is that we *are* going, not where I *want* to go. Stop
being such a wishy-washy human :) and be direct!
DaHjaj nuqDaq majaH?
Where are we going today?
Any objection to not having the *want* in there? It's possible, with some
twisted constructions . . .
> jImuSHa'pu' 'ej jIlujpu' 'e' vImaS. not jImuSHa'pu 'e' vImaSbe'.
> [Better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved.] This one
> is probably way off. The closes "verbage" for love that I've come up with
> (and I think I've seen it on the list) is |muSHa'|. I really had trouble
> with the concept of this one. Of course, it's not very Klingon.
"I have loved, and I prefer that I have failed. I do not prefer that I have
never loved."
It's not *too* bad, although that last part doesn't seem to work. Klingon
doesn't work well with hypothetical situations, or "would have," things like
that.
Hmmm . . . were you trying to say "I prefer that I have loved and I have
lost"? We have no evidence that you can do this, but it's not impossible. I
rather doubt it, though. You can cheat, though:
jImuSHa'pu' 'ej jIlujpu'. ghu'vam vImaS. not jImuSHa'pu'. ghu'vam vImaSbe'.
It's pretty clunky. Anyone got a better one?
Oh, and don't worry; the KSRP's usual choice for translating "love" is
{muSHa'}. Maybe we can start adding more instances of {parmaq}, when it's a
noun . . .
> -----
> BTW: The "\" surrounds English words embedded in my Klingon sentences.
> The "_" represents an underline to denote proper names. The "|" acts like
> quote marks. We should try to come up with a set of conventions for these
> sorts of things on the list that we all follow so we don't need to define
> it when needed. The ones I'm using (with the exception of "\") all work as
> valid filename characters under Win95 so they work there as well.
Good luck. I don't think that Windows 95 characters are going to be adopted
as an accepted standard. Besides, I find your marks hard to read. When
speaking only in Klingon, I tend to put English words in "quotations", names
in *asterisks*, and spoken phrases in <angled brackets>. When communicating
with someone through Rich Text, I boldface Klingon, leave English unboldfaced,
and italicise names (although I'm not terribly consistent with Rich Text,
yet).
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97078.7