tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 07 07:10:59 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: KLIC: UserFriendly translation



ja' charghwI':
>I can't stop myself...

I'm glad you didn't; in the years I've been on the list, I've always 
appreciated the approach you take to recasting English thoughts in 
translation.

When I looked at your third panel, I saw that I didn't say what I thought 
I did.  I suppose it's to be expected; I knew I wasn't ready to begin 
translations yet.  Your third pane was much less convoluted than mine.

I do have a grammar/style question regarding your translation, for my own 
education:

>> -Panel 3-
>> ...although the sound of a single closet door opening and closing
>> punctuates the stunned silence.
>
>'ach poSDI' Sut polmeH pa'Hom lojmIt 'ej ghIq SoQDI', tamchu'taH Hoch 'e'
>qagh lojmItvam chuS.

Question: Is the <'ej> before <ghIq> something you chose stylistically, or 
is it more for clarity (or required)?

I don't have HolQeD 8:3 with me, but I'd just assumed that since the 
adverbial in this case implies a temporal sequence (thus joining the 
clauses), the conjunction isn't needed.  In my mind, it's much like how 
Okrand uses <vaj>:

  <nuHlIj DawIvpu', vaj yISuv> You have chosen your weapon, so fight! (TKW 
p.151)
 
  <bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh> Surrender or die! (TKD p.170)

I'd assumed that since the adverbial expresses a causal relationship 
between the clauses, the conjunction was omitted in normal use.  My canon 
collection isn't complete, but I don't see an example where <vaj> *is* 
used with a conjunction, actually.  There's only the one case where a 
comma is used to separate clauses.

So, is my assumption regarding <vaj> in error, or is expanding that 
assumption to <ghIq> erroneous, or what?  I'm not trying to pick nits, but 
I blinked when I saw that construction.  If I've been living with 
incorrect assumptions regarding grammar, I'd like to correct them as 
quickly as possible.

Jaes


Back to archive top level