tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 23 18:09:42 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: KLBC bom cha'DIch 'e' qon - ghItlh wa'DIch

jatlh Qor'etlh:

> pagh,
> Another set of phrases for your consideration.

vIqelbej.

> The first stanza of another Poem.

> Once again, I appreciate your critique of the grammar, more
> than translation. I think I've chosen the words well, more 
> for meaning, than literal content. The 0-V-S eludes me. 
> I keep slipping between English and German structure,
> losing sight of the correct tlhIngan Hol.

> bom cha'DIch'e' qon:

qon 'Iv?

> jeyHa'
> UNDEFEATED.

While this is a nice short title, it does not mean what you want it to. It
basically means that the mysterious unstated subject tried to defeat
someone, but screwed up, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The best way to say "undefeated", as in "one who is not defeated", is
probably <vay''e' jeybe'lu'bogh>.

> 'ach taDmoH Dir HoSHa',
> And though the cold brittles the flesh,

I don't understand what <HoSHa'> is doing here. If it's meant to represent
"the cold", it doesn't work. <-Ha'> is a verb suffix, so attaching it to the
noun <HoS> doesn't work. <muD bIrqu'> is probably best.

Also, <DIr> is the thing that freezes, so it would be the subject of <taD>,
but the *object* of <taDmoH>.

Finally, the <'ach> does not make much sense here. It probably goes with the
next line.

DIr taDmoH muD bIrqu',

> Qu'tlhegh'e' ghorQo'.
> The chain of duty cannot be broken,

<Qu'tlhegh> is fine, although you could also consider <Qu' mIr>. 

There may be a problem with <ghorQo'>, though. What does the English mean?
The stumbling block is the "cannot". Does that mean that nothing can break
it? Does it really mean "must not", in that some entity commands or requires
that it not be broken? Does it mean that the unspecified subject refuses to
break it. Based on the rest of the text, I suspect it is the first. Adding
the <'ach> from above:

'ach Qu'tlhegh'e' ghorlaH pagh,

> QulDaq tIQwIj tobbej Qu'tlhegh.
> For the chain is forged in the hearts own fire.

Careful with spelling - both <qul> and <tIq> have little <q>'s. You have
<qulDaq tIqwIj> for "the heart's own fire", which is not quite correct. To
start with, what is the difference between "the heart's fire" and "the
heart's own fire"? The second certainly sounds better, but both mean the
same thing. I suspect the <-wIj> on the <tIq>, making it "my heart", was
intended to convey the "own" thing, but it really should be removed. Also,
if it's "the heart's fire", then the Klingon word order is <tIq qul>, rather
than <qul tIq>.

I like the use of <tob> here to convey the idea of "forge". The meanings on
the surface are wildly different, but it does seem to make sense in this
context. The grammar of it needs help, though. You want <Qu'tlhegh> to be
the object of <tob>, not the subject. Once you've done this, you need a
subject, for which you can use <-lu'>. Also, since everyone knows what
you're talking about from the previous clause, you could drop the
<Qu'tlhegh> from this one.

Finally, the "for" in the English really means "because", so you need a
<-mo'> on the verb here. Strictly speaking, a <-mo'> clause should go before
the main clause, but I don't see a problem violating that rule here.

tIq qulDaq toblu'bejmo'.

> taD muHHa',
> which cold could not extinguish.

Back up. <taD> is a verb, not a noun, and just cannot work this way. <muH>
is also a verb meaning "execute", which in my mind can only be applied to
people. I cannot make the stretch, even in a poetic usage, to your meaning.
Try <Qaw'> - "destroy" instead.

Qaw'laHbe' muD bIrqu'.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm

Back to archive top level