tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 18 19:13:16 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC qaDHom
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC qaDHom
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:14:09 -0700
SaqaD. jIjatlh:
> Translate the following English sentence into Klingon:
> Train like you fight, for you will fight like you train.
jang Jeremy Silver. jatlh:
> bIqeqchughbe'; bISuv rur vaj bISuv; bIqeq rur
Rovers cannot go after type nine suffixes, so <bIqeqchughbe'>, doesn't work.
I'm also not sure what it was intended as. The way you are using <rur> also
doesn't work very well. <rur> means "resemble", and can be used well in
phrases like <Dejpu'bogh Hov rur qablIj> - "Your face looks like a collapsed
star". (Sorry - that was the first phrase off the top of my head with <rur>
in it). It essentially describes two nouns as being similar. Using <rur>
with objects - usually represented by nouns - is easy. Using <rur> with
actions - usually represented by verbs - can be very difficult. It's
probably best to just find another way.
jang Nelson Lamoureux. jatlh:
> I have put a lot of thought on that one and it will
> hopefully show this time 8-)
>
> yISuvbej 'e' yIqeqtaH 'ej vaj yIqeqbej 'e' yISuvtaH
>
> Although I still feel something's wrong with that. Lets just see!
In the "sentence as object" construction, <'e'> is the object of the second
verb, and it represents the first sentence. An imperative sentence - a
command - like <yISuvbej> doesn't make any sense as an object of <qeq>. You
could use <bISuvbej 'e' yIqeq>, though. Also, remember that you cannot put
an aspect suffix like <-taH> on the second verb.
I don't think both <'ej> and <vaj> can go together like this. It's probably
best to just make two entirely separate sentences.
In the second half doesn't work, even with the advice above. <bIqeq 'e'
yISuv> just doesn't make sense. "You practice. Fight that!". It also doesn't
make sense to turn it into a command. The first part of the English was the
imperative, and the second part described the result of the imperative. For
that, something like <bISuvtaHvIS bIqeq> is probably best.
bISuvbej 'e' yIqeq. vaj bISuvtaHvIS, bIqeq.
jang HomDoq. jatlh:
> bIqeqtaHvIS yISuvchu'! vaj, bISuvDI', bIqeq neH.
> maybe this strays a little too much...
maj. You might consider adding a <-law'> to the final <qeq>.
jang ter'eS. jatlh:
> qeqmeH mIwlIj rurmo' SuvmeH mIwlIj,
> SuvmeH mIwlIj rurnIS qeqmeH mIwlIj.
maj. This is a bit of a different twist, but it works quite well.
jang ghunchu'wI':
> qeqlIj pab tonSaw'lIj, vaj tonSaw'lIj pabnIS qeqlIj.
> bISuvmeH bIqeqmo', bIqeqmeH yISuv.
maj.
Here is my addition:
may'na' rurchugh qeq, vaj qeq rurbej may'na'.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm