tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 16 18:02:05 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Help with a word...
>From: [email protected]
>Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:06:45 EST
>
>I got no response whatsoever regarding this attempt at translating, so I'm
>repeating it.
>
> bIQtIq choHtaH rur najta'wI'. bIQtIq ghochDaq ghoSnISbogh neH Duj ghaH
> najwI'.
> bIQtIqDaq ratlhvIS bIQ vaj DujwIj vIQapmoH.
>
> Does this make sense, or am I off the wall entirely ?
> Sorry for the repost, but I left something out...
>
>I'll assume that the reason was that it is so convoluted or so far wrong as
>to be non-sensical. For that reason, I'll give the original English. It's
>from a Garth Brooks song, and goes :
Well, I was having trouble with it. Thanks for the English.
>A dream is like a river, ever-changing as it flows. And the dreamer's just a
>vessel that must follow where it goes.
>I will sail my vessel until the river runs dry.
Hmm. You're trying to make up for not having a noun "dream" by tacking a
"-wI'" on it... and that doesn't work. "-wI'", if you like, makes a noun
referring to the *subject* of the underlying verb. So the verb "baH" in
"baHwI'" refers to someone firing, and the "baHwI'" is the one doing the
firing. So a "najwI'" is a dreamer, not a dream (as you use it, come to
think of it). You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... um
sorry. That "-ta'" in there won't help: "najta'" refers to someone having
dreamed, on purpose. A "najta'wI'" is thus that someone who has
deliberately and irrevocably dreamed. "najta'" is every bit as active as
"naj"; "-ta'" only affects aspect, not voice or subject or object.
Hmm. Ways of saying the first sentence which I'm coming up with tend to
weaken the poetry of the second... You may have to translate the two
sentences together...
choHtaHbogh bIQtIq lIghbogh Duj'e' rur najwI'....
Hrm. Doesn't extend well. (Oh, and you can't use a verb adjectivally if
it has a suffix, aside from -qu' or -Ha' or -be'. It has to be choHtaHbogh
bIQtIq, not bIQtIq choHtaH. The neH should go after Duj, and don't forget
the mandatory -'e' on pronoun-as-to-be sentences. The -vIS suffix
*requires* the -taH suffix: I think of them as just one suffix, -taHvIS.
This is incorrect when it comes to -taHneSvIS and -taHQo'vIS, but those are
rare.)
~mark