tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 05 07:33:22 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: yajbe' vavoywI'
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: KLBC: yajbe' vavoywI'
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 98 08:43:03 EST
ja' Edy:
>puq poHmey lut poD
>(short story about generations)
Original short stories are great practice! This reads much better
than the translations you did before. You obviously understand the
ideas behind each sentence well, which is necessary in order to have
effective communication. I'm not concerned about whether you heard or
read it somewhere or if it's truly original with you. The important
thing is that this apparently isn't a translation of an existing set
of sentences that weren't designed to teach you how to speak Klingon.
After reading the story, I'm not sure that {puq poH} works for what
you mean by "generations". You want to talk about the difference
between parent and child. I think {puq poH} refers only to the usual
period of time between a person's birth and the birth of that person's
children. Klingon for the Galactic Traveler has a detailed discussion
of "generational differences" in speech patterns, but I don't remember
finding an obvious way to translate that concept.
I also doubt that {poD} is right here. The only use in TKD of the
word "clipped" is in its description of "Clipped Klingon", which is
the terse speech patterns used in times of stress or when speed and
brevity are important. I'd call this a {lut nI'be'} "short story".
Since you omitted an English translation, I'm going to give one for
you to check and make sure what you said is what you meant.
>- puqbe'oywI', Sut chu' DaneH'a'
"My dear daughter, do you want new clothes?" majQa' -- this is
perfectly grammatical.
>- HIja', vavoy
"Yes, Daddy." As an answer to a yes/no question, this is fine.
>- DISHu' Sut chu' Daje'pu'
"{DISHu'} you have bought new clothes." What are you trying to say
with that first 'word'? {DIS} has meany meanings, but the only one
that might make any sense at all here is "year". {Hu'} means "days
ago" or "get up", and I don't think you intended the verb. Are you
trying to say "years ago"? That's {ben}, and it customarily gets a
number to specify how many years ago something happened.
You've also used {-pu'} on the verb, indicating that the clothing's
purchase was complete at the time in question. If you just meant a
simple past tense, saying that the purchase took place at that time
(whatever time that is), the perfective suffix is not appropriate.
>- jInenchoHmo' vItuQlaHbe'
"Because I [did/will] become an adult, I am/was/will be not able to
wear it." The grammar is fine, but the time reference is a little
unclear to me. Is the daughter going to celebrate her {nentay} soon,
or has she done so already?
>- qatlh DatuQlaHbe'. DIS qaStaHvIS bInenchoHqu'laHbe'
"Why can't you wear it? While it is happening a year [sic] you can't
*become* an adult." The question in the first sentence is perfect.
The second sentence has a word order problem: the thing which occurs
is the subject of {qaS} and must come after it. I'm also not sure why
you placed {-qu'} after {-choH}. That emphasizes the "change" idea.
What did you mean by this sentence?
>- vavoy, Sutvam vItuQlaHbe'
"Daddy, I cannot wear this clothing." Wonderful!
>- toH toH toH. Huch yItlhap 'ej Sut tIn law' Sut mach puS yIje'
"Aha! Aha! Aha! Take money and -- clothing is bigger than clothing is
smaller -- buy it." Uh, oh.
{toH} is an exclamation, meaning "So!" or "Well!" I see it as
indicating surprise or a sudden revelation. It looks like you're
trying to use it to show concession to the daughter's demand, which
doesn't fit my understanding of it at all.
A {law'/puS} construction stands by itself as a sentence. It doesn't
fit inside another sentence as a noun the way you've tried to do it.
You've mangled the {law'/puS} by using two different verbs of quality
in it; the contrast comes from the {law'} and {puS}, not from changing
the verb from {chuS} to {tam} or from {tIn} to {mach}. Using the same
noun twice compares something to itself, which doesn't make sense.
Are you trying to say "buy bigger clothing"? There's no known simple
way to translate this. Comparitive adjectives like "bigger" or
"brighter" don't exist in Klingon, and the {law'/puS} formula doesn't
lend itself to use in a relative clause. You can try something really
complicated like {Sut Daje'nISbogh tIn law' Sut Daghajbogh tIn puS}
"the clothing which you must buy is bigger than the clothing you have"
or you can modify the idea slightly and say {Sut tIn yIje'} "buy big
clothes."
>- ghobe'. Sut mach law' Sut tIn puS vIje'.
"No. Clothing is smaller than clothing is bigger -- I buy it." There
are two different words for "no" in Klingon, and you need to use the
other one here. {Qo'} indicates refusal or disagreement, which is
what the daughter is doing when she rejects her father's order. The
rest of this is exactly like the previous sentence except for the
swapped verbs of quality, and it's exactly as ungrammatical. The same
answers apply: {Sut vIje'bogh mach law' Sut vIghajbogh mach puS} "the
clothing that I buy is smaller than the clothing I have" for the
long-winded thought, and {Sut mach vIje'} "I will buy small clothes"
for the short one.
>(yajlaHbe'ba' vavvatlh)
"That (spelling) father obviously cannot understand." The suffix you
wanted is {-vetlh}. Do you really mean that the father is *unable* to
understand, or does he just not understand what the daughter is saying
right now? I think {yajbe'ba' vav} is a more reasonable idea.
jIyajbe' je jIH. qatlh Sut ngo' tuQlaHbe' 'ach Sut mach tuQlaH be'?
motlh nenchoHtaHvIS vay', tInchoHtaH.
I don't get it. Is there some idiom I don't know that has to do with
"small clothes"? Have I merely badly misunderstood what you meant?
Or perhaps I'm of the father's generation and cannot undersand. :-P
-- ghunchu'wI'