tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 09 01:43:31 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLIC: UserFriendly translation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 10:08 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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)?

{ghIq} is an adverb, not a conjunction. I either needed to use {'ej} or I
needed to split this into two sentences with the second sentence beginning
{ghIq}.

> 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)

I believe that this is not technically correct grammar. He has jammed two
separate sentences together, separated by a comma, very similar to his
translation for dog commands in CK (if I remember correctly). It came out
something like {'uSDaj yIchop, yIchev.} There are very few examples of
Okrand doing this. My guess is that he is implying urgency, so jamming
together sentences with commas instead of periods between them suggests a
stream of words spoken without the usual pause between sentences.

>   <bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh> Surrender or die! (TKD p.170)

There is no conjunction needed here because {bIje'be'chugh} is a dependent
clause. Quite a few people have failed to notice this in earlier
examinations of this example, arguing that {vaj} works as a conjunction. It
doesn't. It feels like it does, but it doesn't.

> I'd assumed that since the adverbial expresses a causal relationship
> between the clauses, the conjunction was omitted in normal use.

Type 9 verb suffixes, like {-chugh}, create dependent clauses. You don't use
conjunctions to connect dependent clauses to main clauses. {-vaj} is not a
conjunction. You would never say {bIje'be'chugh 'ej bIHegh} or
{bIje'be'chugh 'ach bIHegh}. That would be gibberish. {vaj} is an adverb,
not a conjunction. It just feels like a conjunction because it has been used
between a dependent clause and the main clause more often than it has been
used at the beginning of a sentence.

> 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.

Conjunctions are not used to connect dependent clauses to their main
clauses. {vaj} just looks like it does because it appears between them, but
it is really just an adverb at the beginning of the second clause. Looks can
be deceiving, but if you think about it, you'll figure this out.

> So, is my assumption regarding <vaj> in error, or is expanding that
> assumption to <ghIq> erroneous, or what?

Your assumption about {vaj} is an error.

> 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.

AFGO. Another Friendly Growth Opportunity.

> Jaes

charghwI'

Back to archive top level