tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 21 00:43:31 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: cha'DIch vInId

jIjatlh:  <Qu'lIj yIDel>

> vengjonwI' jIH
>   I am a city-engineer  (civil engineer)

I'd keep <veng> and <jonwI'> as seperate words, but that's not a big deal.

> lengHemey vInab 'ej vIchenmoH
>   I plan and build routes for voyages
>   (plan = design)
>   (routes for voyages = roads)
>   (I don't specifically say design or build in the next
>   few sentences. Is it implied by context or must it be said?)

The closest word we have in Klingon to "road" is <He> - "course, route".
This is not necessarily the same thing as a physical strip of pavement and
all the associated stuff that goes with it, but it's the best we have. I
don't think <leng He> (2 words) is any clearer. Now it's "voyage route"
instead of just "route", but you still have the problem of associating it
with the physical road. Best to stick with just <He>.

> qachmey toy'meH bIQ vIngeH
>   I send water to serve buildings
>   (I design/build watermains)

I think <toy'> - "server (a master)" is probably more active than what the
water is doing here. People can certainly <toy'>, and animals, robots and
maybe even a few devices likely can as well, but I don't think it works
here. Instead, I suggest:

qachmeyvaD bIQ vIngeH - I send water to buildings

> qachmey joch qul.   qachmey vIQan
>   Fire harms buildings.  I protect buildings.
>   (I design/build fire protection systems.)

You can say <qachmey Qaw' qul>, and you can say <joch qul>, but you can't
say <qachmey joch qul>. There's been a bit of a discussion going on recently
on the list about "transitive" and "intransitive" verbs, and this is a
perfect example of why it matters. <joch> is defined as "be harmful", and in
English, fire can certainly "be harmful". Fire cannot, however, "be harmful"
a building.

> veQ vIteq
>   I remove garbage. (euphemistic)
>   (I actually design/build sewer systems,  but no self-respecting
> Klingon would say "puchpa'mey vISay'moH",  which is the closest I could
> manage)

I think <veQ vInge'> would be much better here. Of course, you have to take
it away to somewhere else, but that's a different problem.

And why would a Klingon not say this? I would expect Klingons to place
toilet cleaners higher in society than, say, insurance salesmen. Now that's
a frightening thought - Klingon insurance salesmen. Sorry - off track.

> vengmey QIH SoDmey.   vengmey Qan lam qachmey 'e' vIchenmoH
>   Floods damage cities.   Dirt structures protect cities and I build
> them.
>   (I design/build dams and dykes for flood protection works)

If you misspelled <'ej> as <'e'>, then you have a little correction to make.

If you really were trying to use <'e'>, then you've used the wrong tool.
What you've said here is "Dirt structures protect cities. I make that". That
doesn't really work. What you need to say is that you make the structures.
You could say this as <vengmey Qan lam qachmey. qachmeyvetlh vIchenmoH>, or
substitute <'ej> for <'e'>. You could also say this using the verb suffix
<-bogh>: <vengmey Qanbogh lam qachmey vIchenmoH> - "I  make dirt structures
which protect cities".

> bIQtIqmey vISeH
>   I control rivers

Dojqu'.

>   (I design/build river control works)

I'd try to be more specific here - your sentence sounds a little like the
gods on mount Olympus manipulating the Earth. In this sentence and a few
others before it, you have basically said that you personally perform tasks,
when what you really do is design the buildings and machinery and stuff to
do this. You've chosen easier sentences, which is good, but here's what I
would suggest for this one:

bIQtIqmey SeHbogh jo' vInab - I plan/design machinery which controls rivers.

> 'ejDo'mey vInabbe'.   Qu'vam vImaS 'ach vIta'be'
>    I do not plan (design) starships.
>    I would prefer to do so but I do not

Do'Ha'.

> (would "'ejDo'mey vInabbe' 'ach Qu'vam vImas" work better?)

HIja', 'ach Qap je chovnatlh wa'DIch.

> tayqeq ta'qangqu' vay'
>   Someone must be willing to accomplish civilization
>   (Someone has to keep the place running)
>   (I really like this last line, particularly qu' as must.  Am I
>  completely off-base or is there hope for me?)

Sorry - completely off base. Small problem first: the verb suffix <-qu'>
emphasizes whatever is in front of it, and it just cannot mean "must". For
that, we have the verb suffix <-nIS>. Since <-qang> and <-nIS> are both type
2, you can't have both, but the <-qang> really isn't necessary anyway:
<tayqeq ta'nIS vay'> - "Someone needs to accomplish civilization".

Even with this correction, though, it still doesn't make sense. Read your
literal back translation - "Someone must be willing to accomplish
civilization" - and ask what it means. charghwI' posted a good suggestion
for this. Read his, and if you don't like it try again for yourself.

> Incidentally,  I now notice,
> would:     tayqeqjonwI'
> instead of:     vengjonwI'
> be better for civil engineer?

I think you're too attached to the term "civil engineer". Everyone knows
(roughly) what that means in English. Civil Engineering is an established
profession in our society, and it includes a set of diverse but related
tasks. We don't know enough about Klingon society to know whether they have
an analogous profession at all, or if the boundaries are the same. We can
say from the word <jonwI'> and general observation of Star Trek that the
Klingon idea of "engineering" in general is similar to our own, but we can't
really say anything about specific disciplines.

You can call yourself a <veng jonwI'> and expect Klingons to know that
you're an engineer who works with stuff generally associated with cities.
It's pretty general. You could call yourself a <qach jonwI'> if you work
mostly on buildings, although Klingons might figure you for an architect (if
there's any distinction at all). Translate your job title as something
corresponds to what you *do*, not the most literal translation of your
English job title.

As for <tayqeq jonwI'>, this phrase makes me think of some guy in a think
tank planning out the next century of *all* human activity. I don't know
what a Klingon would make of it. "Civilization" is a *very* big concept.


Overall this was a pretty good message. One of the weak spots in Klingon is
talking about everyday life on 20th (or early 21st) century Earth in a
language created for 23rd & 24th century spacefaring aliens. By the very
nature of things we lack a lot of commonplace vocabulary and shared cultural
context, so explaining something as simple as a modern kitchen requires
lengthy and often inaccurate explanations. You've run into such a topic, and
you've done OK with it.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

Back to archive top level