tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 15 13:03:19 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: another fight (was: RE: ghIqtal)
- From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: another fight (was: RE: ghIqtal)
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:03:00 -0500
- Importance: Normal
DloraH (bu'):
> > The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the
> > other bastard die for his.
> > -- General George Patton
> > {veS ghoblu'taHvIS, SeplIjvaD bIHegh 'e' DaHechbe';
> > SepDajvaD Hegh latlh petaQ 'e' DaHech.}
>
> "war" is included in the meaning of ghob. You don't need to include veS.
It's a leftover from an earlier attempt at translation, when I
was throwing around {veS ngoQ}s.
> I have a couple ideas.
>
> SeplIjvaD bIHegh 'e' 'oHbe' veS ngoQ'e';
> SepDajvaD Hegh latlh petaQ 'e' 'oH veS ngoQ'e'.
I tried something like this at first, in fact, exactly this
sentence without the second {veS ngoQ'e'}. My problem with this
is that {'oH} is being used to equate a noun with a verb/phrase.
I'm sure that if somebody said this, everyone would understand,
but is it legal? The {'e' 'oH} looks wierd to me. Maybe one of
the BGs can comment.
> or
>
> veS ngoQ ta'lu'meH SeplIjvaD yIHeghQo';
> SepDajvaD latlh petaQ yIHeghmoH.
This says "In order to accomplish the object of war, don't die
for your country; make the other bastard die for his." It
doesn't say that this *is* the object of war, only that it is
needed to accomplish the object of war (i.e. the object of
war may include other things in addition to it). It gets the
point across, but it's not an "exact" translation. Still, it
is a possibility if the {'e' 'oH} above is not legal.
--
De'vID
--
tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]