tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 31 13:30:29 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: qID
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: qID
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 98 14:39:37 EST
ja' Edy:
> (lutHom chu' - a new "short" story)
maj. SoHvaD lutHomvam vIpojqang.
> qID
>
> (qID neH ghaH. jupvaD jatlh):
>
>- Hoch vISovchu'
>- I know (perfectly) everything
It might also mean "I know everybody."
> (tamchoH jupDaj 'ej jatlh):
> (his friend become quiet and said
You've correctly translated the words, but think about the idea for a
moment. Can someone really become quiet and speak at the same time?
Even if we don't require {'ej} to indicate simultaneity, there's no
cause-and-effect implied either. The word "and" here can only mean
"and then". Translating it with {'ej} is at best controversial, and
until we find out otherwise, it's probably something to avoid. Making
this into two sentences is more in line with the examples of sequence
that we have.
>- chay' DaSov (?)
>- How did you know that?
maj.
>- potlhbe' 'oH. jISovchu'qu'
>- It's not important. I know EVERYTHING.
{'oH} is unnecessary. Putting it there emphasizes the subject "it":
"*IT* is not important." It implies that something else is important.
Instead of {potlhbe'}, consider also {ram}.
{jISovchu'qu'} means "I *completely* know." If you want to emphasize
that you know absolutely everything, you should say {Hoch'e' vISovchu'}
to make "everything" the topic.
>- lu'. yIpegh
>- Okay .. keep it secret
I'm pretty sure {lu'} isn't appropriate here. It's used to indicate
the acceptance of a request, not agreement with a statement. You want
to say something like "Okay, fine, that's good", right? Think {maj}.
>- jIQub
>- I'll think about it
This is "I'll think." {vIqel} "I'll consider it" sounds better to me.
>- qaqoy'
>- I beg you
Hmm. Does {qoy'} work with the person being addressed as its object?
I'm not sure, but without evidence to the contrary I'll accept it.
>- lu'. jIpegh 'ach yIDugh
>- Oky. I'll keep secret but be alert
Good, {lu'} *is* the right word here. The friend is agreeing to do
what the first person said to do. I think {vIpegh} "keep it secret"
works better. {Dugh} is "be vigilant". It's a fine word in context,
but {yIghuH} would be a closer translation of "be alert".
> (nuvghom SIghlaH 'e' tu' ghaH)
> (he discovered that he could influenciate the people)
{nuvghom} means "person-group", whatever that is. If you just mean
"people", use the people-plural suffix {-pu'}: {nuvpu'} "people".
Again, the pronoun is not required. Putting {ghaH} here makes me
think you're emphasizing the fact that *he* discovered this instead of
somebody else. Good use of Sentence-As-Object, though.
[By the way, the English word is "influence".]
>- Hoch vISovchu'
>- I know everything
>- nuqjatlh
>- what?
maj, 'ej maj...
>- Hoch vISovchu'qu'
>- I know EVERYTHING
Again, if you want to emphasize "EVERYTHING", you need to put the
emphasis on the noun itself. The {-qu'} suffix on the verb emphasizes
the "completely know" idea.
>- qItbe' 'oH. chay' 'e' Datu'
>- It's impossible. How did you discover that?
English (and perhaps Portuguese, I don't know) requires the "it" in
order to have something to tack the "to be" verb onto. Klingon has
that idea inherent in verbs of quality. {qItbe'} "it is not possible"
is all you need to say.
The pronoun {'e'} refers to the previous sentence. This whole line
translates as "How did you discover that it is not possible?" The
word "that" in your sentence is is the kind which gets translated by
the suffix {-vetlh}. You can either say something like "How did you
discover that fact" or just do it the way you said {chay' DaSov}
before, leaving the object "it" implied.
> (jaS vang nuvghom. rut tlholu'):
> The people act diffently. sometimes one asked:
Again, "people" is {nuvpu'}, or even just {nuv} when the plural is
otherwise obvious. I assume {tlholu'} is a typo for {tlho'lu'}.
>(*)- Dochvam Sov 'Iv
>(*)- Who else knows that?
Good, you recognized {'e'} as being the wrong tool here. I see you're
a little unsure of a good translation for "who else", though. You
might try {Dochvam Sov'a' latlh?} "Does someone else know this thing?"
> (rut vaQchoHlu')
> Sometimes one become agressive
maj.
>- lu'. 'e' DaSov. DaH qaStaH nuq. bIta' nuq.
>- Okay. You know that. Now. what will happen? What will you do?
This repeats two earlier errors. You're consistent, which makes it
easier to correct the problems. :-) {lu'} is the wrong "okay" again,
and {'e'} is the wrong "that" again.
{DaH qaStaH nuq} = "What is happening now?" You should probably drop
the {DaH} and {-taH} and just ask {qaS nuq} "What happens?" Maybe you
could say {vaj qaS nuq} "So what will happen?"
English (and Portuguese?) changes the word order to ask questions.
Klingon does not. Your last sentence should be {nuq Data'} "what will
you accomplish?"
>- qaS pagh. Hoch vISovchu' 'e' yIqel
>- Nothing will happen. Account that I know everything
maj. The translation "Account that..." is a little odd-sounding, but
there's nothing wrong with it.
>- vay'vaD Daja'chugh vaj bI..
>- If you say it to anyone I ..
You can probably leave off the {-vaD}. We know the object of {ja'}
can be the person being told. The naked prefix {bI-} is "you", not
"I", but since the verb is missing it's not really that important.
>- bIyuDHa'choHchugh vaj yIpegh
>- If you start to be honest I will keep it secret
Either the last word should be {vIpegh}, or the translation should end
with "...then keep it secret!"
>- pItlh. jIQochbe'
>- Done. I agree.
I'm not sure, since the previous sentence was mistranslated in one
direction or the other, but this "I agree" sounds to me like {lu'} or
{luq} would be better.
> (bong qoH qep)
> (Acidently he met a fool)
{qep} "meeting" is a noun. I think you want {ghom} "meet, encounter".
{bong} is indeed "accidentally", but I don't quite understand why you
used it here.
>- Hoch vISovchu'
>- I know everything
>- nuqjatlh
>- what?
The part you repeat most is correct; that's good. :-)
>- vIjatlhbogh Doch'e' bISov.
>- You know the thing that I am talking
Word order and prefix problems here. "The thing which I speak" is
{Doch'e' vIjatlhbogh}. "You know it" is {DaSov}.
>- ghobe'. jISovbe'. bISov nuq
>- No. I don't know. What do you know?
{ghobe'} is probably fine here, but I'd suggest {Qo'} "I disagree".
{vISovbe'} "I don't know it" seems marginally better than {jISovbe'}.
And you're getting tripped up by the question word order again:
{nuq DaSov} "What do you know?"
>- qoH yIDaQo'
>- Don't be stupid
"Don't act like a fool." This is a perfectly good translation; I'll
just point out that {yIQIpQo'} is more literal.
>- Sovlu' 'e' pagh tu'lu'
>- There is nothing to be known (someone knows)
"There is nothing that one knows" needs a relative clause with
{-bogh}, not a sentence as object. {pagh Sovlu'bogh tu'lu'}. You're
finding appropriate recastings, but you're not always translating them
correctly.
>- yInepQo'
>- Don't lie
maj.
>- bISovbe'qu'
>- You DON'T KNOW anything
The "anything" is missing from the Klingon. Try {vay' DaSovbe'qu'}.
>- *hummm* Sovlu'meH Doch tu'lu' 'ach 'e' DaSovbe', qar'a'
>- hummm .. so .. there is something to know but you don't know that, right?
{Sovlu'meH Doch tu'lu'} is probably okay for "there is something to
know", but it has a very odd sound to it. I'd say {Doch Sovlu'}
"something is known" instead. Any time you find yourself using
{tu'lu'} in a sentence with another verb, consider rephrasing it to
use that other verb as the main one of the sentence.
Which "that" do you mean in "you don't know that"? Is it the previous
sentence, or is it the thing which is not known? Using {'e'} says to
me "There's something to know, but you don't know that there is
something to know." If instead you mean "There's something to know,
but you don't know what that thing is", you should use {Dochvetlh}.
>- pagh tu'lu'
>- There is nothing
maj.
>- HochvaD Dochvam vIja'
>- I'll tell it to everybody
I'm pretty sure we've never seen the object of {ja'} be anything
except the person being spoken to. {jatlh} seems okay for what you're
trying to say, though I think {maq} "proclaim" works better yet.
>- HochvaD Daja'laH. bInepmo' nIvoqbe'
>- You can do that but nobody will trust you because you are lying.
I think it's more correct if you drop the {-vaD}.
>- chay' jIneptaH 'e' DaSov
>- How do you know that I'm lying?
{chay'} is part of the second half of this sentence, and should
probably go immediately before {'e'}, which is its object. There are
some examples in canon of adverbials coming *after* the {'e'}, but we
don't have any rules that say they go there and we're not completely
sure why that's what we see.
>- vay'vaD Dochvam Daja'chugh vaj bIneptaH
>- If you say this thing to anybody you will be lying
Same problem with {ja'} and its object, but otherwise okay.
>- lu'. HochvaD Dochvam vIja'choH
>- Okay. I'll start to tell it to everybody
I don't see the command that {lu'} is responding to; maybe you mean
{maj} here too. And {HochvaD Dochvam ja'} is as questionable as ever.
> (wa'nI' poj qoH 'ej jatlh):
> (the fool analised the circunstances and said):
I won't complain too much about this {'ej}, but it still seems like it
would work as two separate sentences, and you'll get a lot less grief
from some people about its style if you do it that way. :-)
>- Dochvetlh yIja'Qo'
>- Don't tell that
{Dochvetlh} is good for "that", but I still don't think it's a valid
object for {ja'}. Maybe {vay' yIja'Qo'} "don't tell anyone"?
>- nuqjatlh
>- what?
maj...
>- bISov ..
>- You know ..
The ".." here seems to indicate that there's something more to the
sentence. It would have to be an object, so it should be {DaSov}.
I've got no idea what that object would be, though. What does the
fool mean here?
>taH 'oH (to be continued)
Nice translation, but {'oH} is redundant and makes it sound very much
like it *was* translated. {taH} "it continues" would be fine without
the explicit pronoun.
Not bad. I hope I haven't given you too much to concentrate on. If
you find you're getting confused, pick a couple of things to get right
immediately and we can work on the rest of them later. :-)
I'm eagerly awaiting the rest of this to find out what the joke is...
-- ghunchu'wI'