tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 21 08:56:47 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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


> Am 19.06.2002 23:12:25, schrieb charghwI':
> >qaDvam vItIv.
> bIlughbej. vItIv je jIH. Dajqu' Qu'.
> >> monDaq qaS wanI' taQ - yajlaHbe' yejquv.
> >monDaq qaS wanI'mey taQmo' lI'be'choH yejquv.
> Why is the -mo' at the taQ? I would say this phrase
> {monDaq qaSmo' wanI'mey taQ lI'be'choH yejquv}
> or
> {monDaq qaSbogh wanI'mey taQmo' lI'be'choH yejquv.}
> Am I wrong, or is this just something else?

You are right. I was apparently not thinking clearly. Often I find that 
sometimes, while focussing on one detail, I miss another. I think I stalled out 
somewhere between the following two ways of saying this and instead of 
deciding, I mixed them, resulting in an error:

monDaq qaSbogh wanI'mey taQmo' lI'be'choH yejquv.

monDaq qaSmo' wanI'mey taQ lI'be'choH yejquv.

The meaning is nearly identical. Because weird events happen, or because of 
weird events that happen, the High Councel becomes useless. Sorry to have made 
this confusing error.

> >> qaStaHvIS wa' jar, ngab nuvpu' law', qaStaHvIS latlh ngab puS.
> >qaStaHvIS wa'wen ngab cha' jar ngabbogh nuvpu' mI' motlh.
> Yes, I also thought about something like this. But I still think it's a 
> little too weird construction. Or has this been discussed before? I haven't 
> been on the list for a while... jIbuDta', 'ach rIn.
> :-)

Since there is no obvious way to say "Twice as many people disappeared as usual 
this last month" that I can think of, it seemed not awkward at all to cast it 
as "The usual number of people who disappear in two months disappeared last 
month." This is not a stereotypical English phrasing, but there's no reason to 
think it is particularly awkward or unusual in Klingon. If there is a usual 
monthly number of people, then twice the number of one month's people is the 
same as the usual number of people for two months, which we can much more 
easily say.
We have cha'logh meaning "two times", but it describes an action happening two 
times. It cannot be grammatically linked to a noun by anything we've been 
taught about the language. It functions as an adverb.

> >> motlh pIHbe' ghu'vam, 'ach ngabDI' vay' reH pat tu'lu'law'.
> >motlh pIHbe' ghu'vam, 'ach rurchuq wanI'meyvam. 
> Nice discription :-)

> >beyond machinery, electronics and other coordinated devices. {mIw} is  
> >probably closer to what you were seeking.
> Yes, you're right that's better!


> >> pIch ghaj *Kohan* tlhach 'e' Har tlhIngan wo' ghoqwI' 'ach toblaHbe'.
> >> DaH ghoqwI' yaS matlh SoH. tlhach bejchu'ghach 'oH Qu'lIj'e'.
> >
> >qara': tlhach bejchu'meH Qu' yItoy'.
> Sounds more like klingon }};-)

It was a late developing revellation for me to see how a {-meH} clause can 
modify a noun instead of a verb. TKD describes it, but all the examples show it 
modifying a verb. In this case, it's not so much that you serve a mission in 
order to watch the sect. That sounds like your mission is washing dishes and 
you do it in order to be by the window so you can watch the sect. The mission 
IS to watch the sect. It is the in-order-to-watch-the-sect mission.
> >Overall, your translation is quite good. I'm not suggesting that you abandon 
> >anything you have and adopt my suggestions. I'm just giving you food for 
> >thought. Take what you like of this and ignore the rest.
> Yes, this gave me a view on different ways to say it. 
> I also would like to know if it's grammatically correct! I am a mughwI' with 
> honor, and I promised to make a 
> perfect work. 'ej not lay'Ha' tlhInganpu', qara' ;-)
> Should I put KLBC in the subjectline?

If you had put KLBC in the subject line, it really would be the BG's right and 
responsibility to exclusively answer it first. Also, this is becoming a bit 
advanced for KLBC, since a large number of the people watching for KLBC in the 
header likely could not follow much of what you are saying.

Since you seemed interested in feedback from the larger group of advanced 
speakers, I think it's fine for you to not put KLBC. The BG can still answer 
it, as can several other people here, like ghunchu'wI', SuStel, Holtej, Seqram, 
Qanqor, Qov, taD, ghuyDo' wa' or others I don't mean to offend by omitting. 
Lots of us can help with good quality translation of text such as this.

Actually, I suspect that you and 'ISqu' are prime candidates for the next BG, 
since both your work shows the level of quality that is typical for a BG when 
they start. The process of fulfilling the role of BG really kick-starts your 
skill level to a higher plateau. As anyone who has been one. It is a very 
educational experience. The majority of conversational Klingonists are former 
BGs. Then you get the brilliant loners, like Nick and Andrew...

Perhaps others deserve consideration as well, but I think you both deserve to 
know that your talents are not going unnoticed.

> Thanks for your opinion!
> Lieven


Back to archive top level