tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 18 19:25:11 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: lut tlhaQ 'e' vItul

jatlh jey'el:

> taghwI' jIH.  jey'el 'oH pongwIj 'e'.
> I'm a beginner.  jey'el is my (Klingon) name.

Note that {-'e'} must be part of the word {pongwIj}.  It's not the pronoun 
{'e'}, it's the suffix {-'e'}.

> chaq lugh, chaq muj, 'ach lut naQ vI'oghta'.  naDev 'oH. 
> Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but I've devised a complete story.   
Here
> it is.

maj.

> DaH, tlhIH 'Itlhbogh, Ha'! yIlagh!  
> Now, you who are advanced, come on and take it apart!

{tlhIH 'Itlhbogh} doesn't work.  The prefix is wrong.  The correct way to do 
this would be

'ItlhwI'pu'

Also, unless you really mean to tell someone to come with you, you probably 
shouldn't use {Ha'}.  I don't see too much of a problem here, as you are 
inviting someone to "enter" into this thread, in a sort of cyberspace area.

> -----------
> 
> lut tlhaQ 'e' vItul
> A funny story (I hope)

If you use {'e'}, then you'd better have two complete sentences.  It doesn't 
work otherwise.  The {'e' vItul} is one complete sentence.  The rest is {lut 
tlhaQ}.  This is just "a funny story."  It's not a complete sentence.  This is 
not how {'e'} works.

You could say

tlhaQlaw'bogh lut
A story which is probably funny.

> veng tInDaq, qach jen HurDaq,

An Ewok village?  In Lothlorien?  The Jetsons?  We don't have a word for 
"tall."  When you say {jen}, I imagine one of these places, not a tall 
building.

Perhaps

qach 'ay' jen
high section of the building

> QamtaH cha' tlhIngan SuvwI'pu' 'ej Dochmey Sar
> ja'chuqtaH.
> In a large city, outside a high building, two Klingon warriors are standing
> and discussing various things.

*Maybe* you can use {ja'chuq} with an object all of its own.  I personally 
believe that it's {ja'} + {-chuq}, and verbs with {-chuq} do not take objects. 
 To say it this way, you'd just say

QamtaH cha' tlhIngan SuvwI'pu' 'ej ja'chuqtaH
Two Klingon warriors were standing and talking.

Adding "various things" doesn't add one bit of useful information to the 
sentence; when you're "discussing," of COURSE you're discussing things, right?

> pIj Hagh 'ej chuSqu'.
> Often they laugh and are very noisy.
> 
> yIttaHvIS Sum tera'ngan 'ej SuvwI'pu' legh 'ej Qoy.
> A Terran is walking nearby and sees and hears the warriors.
> 
> pujwI' jIvvaD qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'.
> To the ignorant weakling they seem mean and vicious.

Hmmm . . . this troubles me.  Without the {-vaD} phrase, this is {qejlaw' 'ej 
naSlaw'}.  {-law'} doesn't mean that the *subject* of the sentence isn't sure 
of the validity of the statement, it means that the *speaker* isn't sure of 
it.  Therefore, {qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'} means "they were probably mean and 
vicious."

Then, if you add the {-vaD} phrase, you're saying that their being mean and 
vicious, assuming it is true, is being applied to the ignorant weakling.  But 
the Klingons haven't even noticed him yet, how could they be mean and vicious 
to him?

Let's try this again, this time with the Terran and the speaker straight in 
our minds:

qej SuvwI'pu' 'ej naS 'e' Har pujwI' jIv.
The ignorant weakling believed they were mean and vicious.

There are other verbs besides {Har} that you could choose for this spot.

> chaH juSnIs ghaH 'ach cholvIp.
> He needs to pass, but he's afraid to come close to them.

While I accept this Klingon sentence, I don't like this English translation as 
the *literal* translation.  As far as I know, {chol} does not take an object.  
Something does not "come closer something," it just "comes closer."  The only 
two uses of {chol} that I know of are in TKD:

chollI'
it is coming closer
If a missile is getting closer, but its intended destination is not known, 
{choltaH} (with {-taH} "continuous") would be more appropriate.

So, I'd accept the literal translation of your very correct Klingon sentence 
as, "He needs to pass, but he's afraid to come closer."

> vaj chaHvo' Hop'eghmoHmeH nech.
> So, in order to distance himself from them, he moves to the side.
> 
> tlhInganpu' bej 'ej qamDu'Daj bejbe'.
> He's watching the Klingons and not watching his feet.
> 
> vaj bong nagh pupDI', lupwI' HeDaq pum tera'ngan Soy'.
> So when he accidentally kicks a rock, the clumsy Terran falls into the path
> of a jitney.
> 
> ghaH DungDaq jaH lupwI'.  SIbI' Hegh.
> The jitney goes over him.  He dies immediately.

Possessives are not used in noun-noun constructions.  You must say 
{DungDajDaq}.


> wanI'vam luleghpu'DI', wa' thlInganDaq tlhe' latlh 'ej ja':
> Having seen this event, one Klingon turns to the other and tells him:
> 
> Hegh qoHpu' neH HaghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'!
> Only fools die when warriors laugh!

majQa'!!!  tlhaQbej!

> ----
> nIteb lutvam vI'ogh.  SovwIjDaq, latlh nuv qechmey vInIHta'be'.
> I devised this story alone.  Within my knowledge, I didn't steal another
> person's ideas.

"Within my knowledge" is really just an English way of saying {-law'}.  Drop 
{SovwIjDaq} and just say

latlh qechmey vInIHbe'law'ta'
I don't think I've stolen another's ideas.

I removed {nuv} because we're not sure if we can use {latlh} like we can use 
{Hoch}.  Okrand never has.  Besides, you don't need to.  {latlh} can mean 
"another person."  {latlh} means "an additional one (of whatever the context 
tells you it means)."  This is why, in Star Trek V, when Vixis told Captain 
Klaa that hostages had been taken on Nimbus III, and that one was a Klingon, 
he said {latlh?} "And the others?"

Also, I think I like the {-be'} on the verb itself in this example.  Since the 
joke is told, your "not stealing" is complete.  It's not that your stealling 
is not complete.

> 'ach, not latlh nuv yab 'elpu'chugh lut tlhegh Qav qech, vaj jIyay'.
> Nevertheless, I'd be shocked if the idea of the story's last line had never
> entered another person's mind.

{latlh yab}, but otherwise this is excellent.

> chaq jaS ghotpu' wanI'mey je cherpu'DI', lut pIm rInmoHmeH tlhegh rap lo'pu'
> vay'.
> Perhaps, having set up characters and events differently, someone has used
> the same line to finish a different story.

Consider putting the subject {vay'} on the *first* sentence, not all the way 
at the end.  I read this sentence, wondering "Who has done the setting up?  
Who?  What am I reading about?

chaq jaS ghotpu' wanI'mey je cherDI' vay', lut pIm rInmoHmeH tlhegh rap lo'.

I don't see those aspect markers as particularly useful, either.  As soon as 
someone had completed doing something, he had completed something else?  They 
sort of cancel each other out.

> teHchugh, nuqDaq 'oH?  vIlaD vIneH.
> If  true, where is it?  I'd like to read it.

mu'tlheghvam jatlhlaw'pu' *charghwI'*.  chaq tlhIngan Hol jabbI'IDghom 
tameyDaq mu'tlheghvam tu'lu'.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97464.5

Back to archive top level