tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 07 13:59:35 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC - DaH mughqa' tuv'el 'e' nIDlaw'
lab tuv'el:
>
> KLBC - DaH mughqa' tuv'el 'e' nIDlaw'
>
> naDev jabbI'IDmey tu'lu' jay'!
HIja'. jabbI'IDmey lutu'lu'bej. chaq <law'> DachelnIS: <naDev jabbI'IDmey
law' lutu'lu' jay'!>
Note the <lu->: since the object is plural, and the <-lu'> sort of reverses
the role of the prefix, the <lu-> is technically necessary. In KGT, Okrand
says that omitting it is a common and sometimes acceptable error. Also, some
people have speculated that <tu'lu'> has become a fossilized construction,
and the <lu-> is not necessary, making me sound like an uptight fifth grade
English teacher. In any case, <lutu'lu'> is quite correct, but just plain
<tu'lu'> is often used as well. You can decide if you want to drop the <lu->
here, but you should be aware of what is going on.
Note that the paragraph above only applies if the object is plural. If the
object is singular only <tu'lu'> is correct.
> vIlaD bIH Hoch vIneH 'ach poH yap vIHutlh jIH.
Remember your sentence order: object verb suffix. Also, the pronouns are not
necessary unless you want to add emphasis. Finally, although <poH yap
vIHutlh> is fine, <yapbe' poHwIj> is a more direct way of stating it.
<Hoch vIlaD vIneH 'ach yapbe' poHwIj>.
> ghay'cha'! vInuDnIS bIH.
Sentence order again. <bIH vInuDnIS>, or better yet, just <vInuDnIS>.
> pIj jIDach. chay' bIH bobuSqangchu'bogh bowIvlaH? HIja'.
Hoch tlhIngan Hol jabbI'ID vIlaD jIH. jIpo'choHpa' pIj vI'qu' jabbI'ID, 'ach
jabbI'ID vIlaDchu'pa', vIwoDQo'. cha' ben jabbI'ID vIpolbogh law' law'
wa'SaD law' puS. 'ach vIlaDtaHvIS jIpo'choH 'ej DaH Hoch jabbI'IDmey
vIlaDmeH ngeDchoHpu' Qu'. chaq jIH ngotlh law' HochHom ngotlh puS, 'ach
jIghoj vIneHqu'.
I read every Klingon message. I made a rule for myself a long time ago: if
it contains good Klingon, I will not delete it until I have read it
completely. At one point, I had over a thousand messages, but I read them
all, and in doing so, I got a lot better at it, and now keeping up is not a
problem. This may not work for everyone, but it worked for me.
>
> DaH vIQIj:
>
> muja' Qov:
> > > 'ej DaH vay'vaD pImqu':
>
> > Ugh. the translation doesn't work. I thought for a while
> > that this was referring to the accordians and you had meant nIb
> > instead of pIm, i.e. for most people bad meSchuS playing is
> > identical to any other kind.
> >
> > This says "and now, for the benefit of someone/something,
> > it/he/she/they is/are quite different."
>
> I was trying to say, "And now for something completely different..."
Translating Python quotes into Klingon is never a good idea :-) Your have
captured all the words, but English is a funny language - the "for" in your
sentence is not even remotely like anything in Klingon. Why did you want to
use this sentence, and what does it mean in that context? Think about this
and come up with something that makes sense in Klingon.
>
> DaH vImugh:
nuq Damugh? If we all know what you are translating, it's OK to leave out
the object. Otherwise, you need to include it or use the no object prefix:
<DaH jabbI'ID vImugh> or <DaH jImugh>.
>
> Qov ja' ghunchu'wI':
> > SoHvaD potlhbe'ba' QoQ, Qov. bIval 'ej bIqu'. vay' Daghoj
> > DaneHchugh, DayajlaHbej. Hol rur QoQ; mu'tayHey pabHey je
> > ghaj. mI'mey Holqoq rurlaw' QoQ Holqoq. puSqu' QoQ
> > QoylaHqu'be'bogh nuv. puSbe' QoQ Qoychu'meH mIw Sovbe'bogh
> > nuv. mIw DaSovbe' neH 'e' vIHarchu'.
>
> Music is obviously not important for you, Qov. You are clever
> and fierce. If you want to learn anything, you can certainly
> understand it. Music resembles language; they have apparent
> vocabulary and apparent grammar. The so-called language of music
> seems to resemble the so-called language of numbers. There are
> very few people who really can't hear music. There are not a
> few people who don't know a procedure to hear music perfectly.
> I clearly believe that you just don't know the process.
>
> > Do'Ha' ghojmoHmeH mIw vISovbe' jIH. qay'be' -- bIghoj
> > DaneHqu'chugh, bIghoj'eghmoHlaH 'e' vIpIH.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know the process for teaching.
> No problem -- If you really want to learn, I expect you can
> teach yourself.
>
> > bIbomchu'be''a'? ram. ghoghlIj vIparbe'. le'qu'. tugh
> > vIQoyqa'jaj.
>
> You can't sing well? It's unimportant. I don't dislike your
> voice. It is very exceptional. May I soon hear it again.
>
> ja' charghwI':
> > > batlh may'ronmey law' vISIQta'. jIyoHba', qar'a'?
> I have endured many accordions with honor. I am obviously
> brave, right?
>
> ja' ghunchu'wI':
> > bIyoHlaw', 'ach DIronmey'e' DaqaDrup'a'?
> You seem brave, however are you ready to confront bagpipes?
>
> > chay' pIm DIron chuS'ugh?
> > meQmeH, chuS'ugh nI' law' DIron nI' puS.
> How do bagpipes and a chuS'ugh differ?
> A chuS'ugh burns longer than bagpipes.
>
>
> ja' Qov:
> > pa' potlhwI' tu'lu'. QoQ wIDelmeH Deghmey DIwIv 'ach
> > wanI'meyna' DIDel. Qo'noSDaq tera'Daq loghDaq je QoQ
> > luDellaH yu'eghmey. napHa'ghach vIQoylaHbe' jIH 'ach
> > QeD'e' vIvuv. mI'QeD rur QoQ. Hol tIgh je juSchu'.
> > QoQ DelmeH potlhbe' tlhIngan yajmeH mIw. yu'eghmey
> > DIDellaH neH. QoQ yajbe'chu' Hoqra', 'ach yu'eghmey
> > qonlaH 'ej muchlaH. QoQvetlh luDellaH je mu'mey
> > luyajbe'taHvIS. mu'meyvetlh'e' nejlaw' QoQ luparHa'bogh
> > jatlhwI'pu'ma'. vIyajlaw'.
>
> There are important things over there. We choose symbols to
> describe music, but we describe definite events. Waves can
> describe music on Kronos, on Earth, and in outer space. I can't
> hear the complexity, but I respect the science. Music resembles
> number theory. It clearly overtakes language and custom. A
> procedure for understanding Klingon is not important for
> describing music. Just so we can describe waves. A Tricorder
> clearly can't understand music, but it can record waves and
> can perform music. They can also describe that music while not
> understanding the words. Our speakers who like music seem to
> seek those words. I apparently understand them.
One vocab comment: for <mI'QeD>, use "mathematics", not "number theory".
Mathematicians use the term "number theory" for a very specific branch of
mathematics.
>
> maSwov ja' Qov:
>
> > taghwI' Dapqoq vItIv.
> [I enjoy my lung's so-called nonsense.]
> [I enjoy one who initiates so-called nonsense.]
"I enjoy beginners' nonsense." In this particular case, the <-qoq> softens
the meaning - the "beginners' nonsense" is not really nonsense. Also, we
know the <taghwI'> cannot be "my lung" because 1: it makes no sense, and 2:
"my lung" would use the non-speaking possessive suffix <-wIj>, not <-wI'>.
>
> tuv'el ja' pagh:
> > > Why would ternary HAVE to be based on 0,1, & 2. If you
> > > don't acknowledge the 0 (sorry pagh), then you have 1,
> > > 2, 3, 11=4, 12=5, 13=6, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33=12, etc.
> >
> > bIlughchu'. qatlh nuv law'vaD Qatlh qechvam? mI' pagh
> > noplu'chugh vaj loQ Qatlh SImmeH Qu', 'ach QaptaH pat.
> > pIjHa' SImnISqu' lutlhwI'.
>
> You are perfectly correct. Why does this idea seem difficult
> for so many people? If one leaves out the number zero then the
> task of calculating is a little bit complex, however the system
> works. A Primitive very seldom needs to calculate it.
>
> > tIQ tlhIngan toghmeH patvam, 'ej tera' toghmeH patmey tIQ rur.
> > mI'pagh qelbe'taH tIQbogh tera'ngan tayqeq law'. luyajmeH
> > lutlhwI', pagh Qatlh law' wa' Qatlh puS. Dochna' 'oS wa', 'ach
> > nuq 'oS pagh? chay' pagh Doch leghlu'? chay' pagh Doch toghlu'?
>
> This ancient Klingon system for counting resembles ancient Terran
> counting systems. Many ancient Terran civilizations didn't take
> the number zero into account. Primitives that understand it, zero
> is more complex than one. One represents something definite, but
> what does zero represent? How does one see a none-thing? How
> does one count a none-thing?
"Primitives that understand it" should be "In order for primitives to
understand it".
Your translations are quite accurate. There are a few small errors, but your
translation would be good enough for an A in a first year high school
language class. In particular, I like the last little bit of mine :-)
Your translations are also quite literal, which is probably appropriate for
this stage of your development. As you work more and gain more experience,
it will be natural to fit the often stilted phrases you come up with into
more natural English. Next time you translate a long bit of Klingon, give
yourself a little bit more freedom to come up with natural sounding English.
Keep writing in Klingon. Reading other peoples' examples of good Klingon is
important, but writing your own is far more important. The end of Qov's
painstick is one of the most effective learning tools around.
> qaStaHvIS wa'maH cha' pemmey wa'maH cha' rammey je, tlhIngan
> Hol vIHaD.
> jIDubchoH'a'?
>
laHlIj DaDubta'ba'. yIHaDtaH!
pagh
Temporary Beginners' Grammarian