tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 25 00:42:09 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 jIH:
>> bom cha'DIch'e' qon:

> qon 'Iv?
qon jIH. qar'a'?

>> jeyHa'
> 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>.
It is a descriptive fragment, not an entire phrase.
I intended to create a verb clause. The negation of defeat.
Did I fail?

>> '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.
HoS is also a verb (sorry, it's one of those).

> 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.
Yes, more so, but I wanted these to match in cadence, 
as well as inference.

I was working on a verb based phrase, not the literal translation of
the English. I also need to follow the 'sound', matching the number
of syllables, as much as possible. I'm going to be speaking this
part, at the same time as someone else is telling the English

> 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>. 
Yes, well here again, I'm going for a more Klingon meaning, and not
necessarily a literal translation. While {mIr}; chain, is more
accurate, I've found {-tlhegh} is used more often to describe more
lines, chains-of-command, and other components in our language.

I could use opinions from the Peanut Gallery on this matter.
[[They have been suspiciously quiet here. Is everybody just thinkng
about the qep'a'.? With so many pabpo'pu' on the 'List I though that
this stuff would be torn to pieces by now.] }};-]

> 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? 
Duty demands that the chain remain unbroken.

> 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,
Yes, ok, nothing can break it.

I'll have to stew on this. More later today.

PS: I still have the second stanza to send. I'll work on this part,
one more time, and then time is running out. Gotta move on.

Qor'etlh valwI'na', Daq marr tuq, tlhIngan wo' Duj QonoS qa'
qepHom 'utlhHom - Klingon Language Institute.
{qo'mey poSmoH Hol}language opens worlds /
Maybe I'm wrong, but I am always Qor'etlh.
{nuq, vISaH?} - What, me worry? - 
{yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej pechep.}
{Qapla' batlh je!}
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at

Back to archive top level