Re: Help with translation

["christoph.pichlmann" <christoph.pichlmann@agrana.com>]

ja' DloraH

>ghor - "break", transitive.
>QIH is "damage, cause damage".  It's transitive, it takes an object;
which
>means we can't use it as an adjective.

ghuy'


>Both of these are transitive and the sentence needs to be reworked, so
I think
>we should stay with QIH.  If a car has a dent, it is damaged but not
broken.
>
>jan QIHbe'lu'pu'bogh DatI'taHqu'
>  A device which hasn't been damaged, you will be fixing forever.
>
>jan QIHbe'lu'pu'chugh DatI'taHqu'
>  If a device hasn't been damaged, you will be fixing it forever.

Hmm - yes, I understand. Unfortunately, the sentence has lost the tone
I wanted it to have. It was supposed to be accusatory, because (as I
see it) today many products(especially in Software) are limited to be
repaired without being broken(then called "update", nothing new but
"nicer" surface and even more resources needed).

Why is the "-lu' " needed btw? The subject is known, isn t it?

>I see it working either way.
>Because your choices are -chugh or -bogh, you lose the symmetry
anyways.
ghuy'cha'
What would happen if I added a "-ghach" at the end of the last verb? It
would make a noun(rather a DIpqoq) out of it, somehow saving the
symmetry(chugh/ghach).
Doesn t sound good either, does it? I suppose I better cease trying to
translate it.


Well, doesn t seem to work in klingon, perhaps in a few years(when I am
better at understanding it). Thanks for the help.

christoph