tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 24 19:30:14 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ST:EXP Transmission
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:01:49 -0800 (PST)
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
>charghwI'vo':
>
>Let's please not assume this is canon before we get some sort of
>confirmation. There is a lot of really weird stuff here, and we
>have in the past gotten all worked up over a translation a
>couple people were really sure was done by Okrand only to have
>one of our own members sheepishly confess that he had done the
>translation himself, making more than a few significant errors
>and presumptive leaps into new grammatical constructions.
>
>If Okrand wrote this, I will wince and accept it, but it does
>not look like Okrand to me.
I don't know any more about this than you (probably less, since I'm still
catching up on my email), but actually it DOES look quite Okrandian to me.
Your reference to the lesson we learned a while back is well-taken, and
there's plenty of room for me to be wrong, but it really looks like it
could be canon from where I sit.
>> > INCOMING KLINGON TRANSMISSION
>>
>> **** tlhIngan De' ****
>>
>> tera' poH jaj wa', jar wa', jaj loSDIch, DIS wa'-Hut-Hut-chorgh:
>
>I don't think Okrand has made any translations for days of the
>week. I'd be very surprised if he began with something as
>confusing as {jaj wa', jar wa', jaj loSDIch} for "Sunday,
>January 4th". I would have expected him to drop the reference to
>"Sunday" altogether, since it is a confusing and redundant
>reference to the same date in a different reference frame with
>no explanation for the days-of-the-week reference. The
>hyphenation of the date digits is also... unique.
"tera' poH jaj wa'" is pretty crummy, at least to me. I'd have expected a
reference to "Hogh" somewhere along the line, but maybe he wanted to make
sure that Hogh remained a uniquely Klingon time-period. Otherwise I don't
see much problem (though jar wa', jaj loSDIch seems a little inconsistent,
it's okay); the hyphenated numbers seem okay to me.
>> HovpoHvetlh latlh nab yIHutlh.
>
>My, what an unusual use of {Hutlh}.
Oh, but it's GREAT! Be free of plans that day! This one I rather like.
>> laS veghaS HIltonDaq Hov leng: yIjeSchu' qaSchoHmo', bIlopqu'meH HIlton
>> yIghoS.
>
>I'm surprised Okrand would have written this addressing second
>person singular instead of plural. I would expect a less
>experienced writer to do this, however.
Good point, I agree. However, advertisements are often phrased to address
individuals, even though they are read by the masses. This is particularly
obvious if you read ads in Israel or something, where singular and plural
"you" is differentiated in the language. So I don't think this is
necessarily so damning.
> If this is canon, I want
>to know about it, since I very much prefer {qaSchoHmo'
>yIjeSchu'} over {yIjeSchu' qaSchoHmo'}. We have no other
>examples so far of {-mo'} being used in a clause following the
>main clause and TKD does not address whether this is acceptable
>or not. We know that {-mo'} on a noun must preceed the main
>clause and we know that the verb suffix is closely related to
>the noun suffix.
That's on a noun; I don't think verbs has the same restriction. Maybe
before the main verb is the more usual place for it, but there's probably
room for stylistic variation to keep the sentences from getting monotonous.
>> tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH loS bIyIn jeSlaHpa' Hoch.
>
>How interesting. Perverse, even. The concept of a changing time
>reference like this is difficult to do in Klingon, but this
>seems like a VERY strange way to accomplish it. I'd have done
>something more like:
>
>SujeSDI' tera' vatlhDIS poH cha'maH loS qo'Hey boSuch.
>
>I think that would have been much easier to understand and more
>accurate to what is actually happening.
Perhaps, but less dramatic. This is ad copy: You get to live in the 24th
century before anyone else can!
>> DIvI' 'ejDo' 'entepray'Daq Dajollu'.
>>
>> loghDaq lupDujHom qoDDaq bIlengtaHvIS, nIbuQbogh novpu' DaSuv.
>
>Interesting. While you travel in space in the interior of a
>shuttlecraft... Would one expect to travel in the EXterior of a
>shuttlecraft? I would expect it to be enough to say
>{lupDujHomDaq}. {lupDujHom qoDDaq} is unusual phrasing for
>Okrand. Also, since shuttlecrafts usually travel through space,
>{loghDaq lupDujHom qoDDaq bIlengtaHvIS} seems exceptionally
>wordy. I'd have written {lupDujHom yIlIgh 'ej jaghmey tISuv!}
*shrug*. Again, ad copy, going for the dramatic. Read advertisements,
they often emphasize the obvious for effect. You're traveling in a
shuttlecraft, yes, but you're travelling THROUGH SPACE! Isn't that
something?! Travelling INSIDE a shuttlecraft THROUGH SPACE! Wow! They're
selling, not just reporting. (Now, whether Klingon ads should do this is
another question altogether). Imperative wouldn't be quite right, though,
since they're telling what happens, not ordering you to do it.
>> quwargh tach Qe' je qoDDaq Hov leng Soj DatIv.
>
>Note that {uw} is one of those letter combinations that never
>happens in Klingon as the end of a syllable. That means that the
>first syllable in this translitteration of Quark's name is
>{qu-}, an open syllable. To show how unusual this is, I just did
>a string search of my entire dictionary and other canon and
>found two instances of the prefixed verb {luwuqmeH}. I don't
>think Okrand wrote this. It is not a horrendous transliteration,
>but I'd have a greater expectation of there to be a glottal stop
>instead of an open first syllable.
Not surprising to me. "quwargh" probably isn't my first guess as to how to
transliterate "Quark", but it's not so bad. I would expect unusual
syllable constructions in this word: it's a foreign word! Hell, we have
"pIqarD" for heaven's sake, and that isn't even valid in any other setting!
It's the typical addition of an epenthetic vowel to break up clusters that
Okrand always does, usually with "I" (ghIlab ghew, ghIlaSnoS, bIreqtal,
etc), but because o fthe following w, it makes more sense to use u. Adding
a glottal stop would stress the syllable too much.
>It is also interesting that the English imperative was
>translated into this declarative sentence, while the word {qoD}
>was once again, unnecessarily included. Second person singular
>continues to be the rage here.
At least it's consistent. The indicative works okay still, since it's
selling you on what will happen. qoD *is* somewhat unexpected, but not
horribly so.
>> jolbogh ghom wa'DIch DamuvlaHmeH De' DaneHchugh, Se'vam yIjIHtaH.
>
>Interesting that earlier, the person beamed was the object of
>{jollu'}, while now they subject of {jolbogh}. If Okrand wrote
>this, he was sloppy.
Oooh, this is something. Good point. Okrand DOES sometimes get
sloppy... but then so do others.
I still don't know, but I'm not convinced it WASN'T Okrand.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBNHpGQMppGeTJXWZ9AQGd8wL/XrFedYO2YbErT8LMhZaDxlkZ0uAMPN2s
B3VnHF/C0XpvRy3uf/Rsxmd7wG9rJIqyXUW7UOrNMYFDDNAa3KOl2sjseYdIOnnk
mWI2bcjNLt/xcNvwI/d0cqMiFR+E0m/W
=LcfI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----