tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 17 18:44:26 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: tlhab ja'qu'ghach



This one has been snapped WAY out of KLBC!!!

jatlh qoror:

> 	qoror here.  Ready?  I've translated the first bit of the Declaration of
> Independence into tlhIngan Hol.

No.  No way.  This ain't KLBC stuff.  The rest of the list should feel free to 
contribute here, but I'm not going to pour over THIS one!

> This time I've strived to stay canonical, but
> one thing I practiced a lot was, to put verb/adjectives into tion/ness 
words, I
> took the antonyms of them, then added -Ha'ghach.  For instance, "happiness"
> became "'IQHa'ghach," literally, "unsadness."  I did that some other times 
too,
> but please don't criticize on that point -- I know it's not as accurate as 
one
> might like.  But if anyone has a better suggestion, I'd be glad to hear it.

It's not a matter of being accurate, it's a matter of being sloppy.  In 
Klingon, if you need lots of {-ghach}s, you're probably doing something wrong. 
 There's one list member who's written some long Klingon stories, and she 
refuses to use {-ghach}!  She has no problems at that!

> 	That's all I've done.  And a good thing too, because the rest of the
> thing is a list of all the sins George III did.  It's not very colorful.  
Now
> there's a bit I'd like to address.  In the 18th line (of the Klingon text), 
I
> use "paghHommo'."  Completely uncanonical, but the way it works it this:  
The
> word for "all" with the diminuitive suffix means "most," so I decided to use
> "paghHom" as "almost nothing."  So I translated "for light and transient 
causes"
> into "because of almost nothing."  Much clearer, isn't it?

If you need to explain it, then there's another problem.  But I don't think I 
can accept your analysis of {paghHom}.  And as for my own, "minor nothing" is 
pretty nonsensical.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97210.4


Back to archive top level