tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 05 12:24:50 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: RE: KLBC:Eating.

>>Okay, I got the first part, I'll say <Dochvam vIlo'>. Now, to clarify, is
>>the second part, <Dochvetlh jIpe'meH (or whatever)>?


>Close -- it would have to be {vIpe'meH}, since the verb has an object.

QaghHomwIj.

>>Whenever I think of
>>the phrase "in order to do Y to that", Y is a noun (such as "harm", or
>>"insult", and not "book", or lamp").


>In Klingon, the ideas of "do harm" and "give an insult" and many similar
>English phrases are carried by specific verbs. Consider the verbs {QID}
>"wound", {QIH} "damage", and {tIch} "insult".

There are many "verbs" like that. Verbs like "do dammage", "do insult", "do
injury". However, they also have corresponding one word verbs ("dammage",
"insult", "injure") which are what confused me. I thought that since the
two ideas are expressed differently in English, they should also be
expressed differently in Klingon. What a fool was I! The two languages
aren't even related.


>> In this case, the phrase would
>>translate as <DochvetlhvaD reghwI' jInob> (using <reghwI'> as a noun for
>>"cut"): "I give a cut to that thing". Is that wrong?


>It *is* wrong -- you need to say {vInob}, not {jInob}. Even after fixing
>that minor error, it's still very convoluted. You're trying to translate
>the phrase "give a cut to" in an extremely literal sense, when there's a
>perfectly good verb "cut" that fits the meaning exactly.

Again, in English, the phrases "I give a cut too..." and "I cut..." are
different, but they have no practical difference in use. Klingons don't do
something like that: it's silly.


>>My translation is:
>>
>><DochvetlhvaD reghwI' jInob Dochvam vIlo'> "I use this thing to give a
>>cut to that thing."


>The {jInob} should be {vInobmeH} -- you lost the {-meH} idea somewhere
>along the line.

jIbachHa'qa'ba'. 

>>Maybe it's just more work for the same result.


>It's a whole lot more work for a much less satisfying result. Why do you
>want to avoid using the simple verb {pe'}? In many cases, where you find
>yourself wanting to use the English words "give" and "do" and "have" more
>than a couple of times in a whole page of text, you might want to rethink
>the idea a bit and identify a more appropriate verb.

Yeah, I've deffinately have got to stop thinking of the two languages as
running parrallel, that is my major hang up. Thanks for your help.


--- loD Doq

Back to archive top level