tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 12:29:13 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlh vay' vInuQ :)
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> > My initial reading, I thought you might have been intending something like
> > "A challenger's reasons and a dissenter's reasons are different"
>
> That would have been /pIm qaDwI' meq QochwI' meq je/.
bIqarbej. 'ach chay' jISovlaH bIjatlhchu'chegh?
Exactly -- but how was I to know if that was what you actually intended?
> > vItlu'pu' net SovlaHbe' vIt Sovbe'lu'chugh. tera'nganvaD Damughchugh
> > tlhIngan DajatlhDI' vaj bIlugh 'e' wISovbej. mISvaD bISuD Damughbe'chugh.
> >
> > "One cannot know if one is telling the truth if one does not know the
> > truth. If you translate for Terrans when you speak in Klingon, then we
> > will know for certain that you are correct. You risk confusion if you do
> > not translate it."
>
> In the above paragraph, use /bImughchugh/ and /bIjatlhDI'/.
qatlh?
Why? :)
Perhaps I omitted /Hol/ after /tlhIngan/ -- But /jatlh/ takes an object
when the object is a language. This is rudimentary TKD example stuff.
The object of /mugh/ "translate" is what is translated. Perhaps a little
clearer this way:
tlhIngan Hol DajatlhDI' tera'nganvaD Damughchugh vaj bIlugh 'e' wISovbej
"When you speak Klingon, if you translate it for Terrans, then we will
certainly know you are correct."
I could be more clear if I gave /Damughchugh/ the object of
/mu'tlheghlIj/, but I would think the object of translation clear enough
from context...
> /mISvaD bISuD/ means "You risk for the benefit of confusion." That's
> probably not what you want. An alternative might be along the lines of
> /chaq qaS mIS/ or /chaq mISlu'/.
They don't really convey the sentiment, though they would be accurate.
Perhaps more close would be /chaq vay' DamISmoH/ "Perhaps you'll cause
someone to be confused." More, though, I wanted to convey the idea of
risk that is your choice, whereas /chaq/ would seem to me to be more of a
general concept with no human control. Thus /SuD/. The question is, does
/SuD/ take an object? Is it more "take a chance on"? In which case I
would've just said /mIS DaSuD/ "You take a chance on confusion"...
> mu'tlhegh qon SuSvaj'e'. vIqonbe'qu' jIH'e'.
"SuSvaj records sentences. I definitely do not record them."
This would be a good one for you to translate yourself, because I don't
think I even get the general gist of your intention here. /qon/ seems to
be more of an audio/musical concept, IMHO, so I'm not sure that's what you
want. Then, the two sentences seem contradictory, in one you say you're
recording things, the next you're emphasising that you do not... Could you
have meant /vIqonchu'be' jIH'e'/? And who or what is /SuSvaj/ -- I
thought you were /SuStel/? :P
> > pIj jImuj 'e' vISov. vaj HochvaD jInub.
>
> /nub/ means "be suspect." The word you want is /pIH/ "be suspicious."
> You're not suspicious for the benefit of all, and /pIH/ "be suspicious"
> probably doesn't take an object (there's another word /pIH/ "expect" which
> does), so I'd go with /vaj Hochmo' jIpIH/ "So I am suspicious because of
> everything." Another alternative, probably even better, is /vaj mupIHmoH
> Hoch/ "So everything makes me suspicious."
Check dictionary.com, I think you'll find that if one is suspect, they
"have suspicion". And /-vaD/ is an indirect object marker, it does not
necessarily mean "benefit" in the positive English connotation. Your
alternatives are good, though, but I would argue that there is nothing
particularly wrong with /vaj HochvaD jInub/ unless you can present a
better argument. ;)
> > lughbejbe' mu'tlheghwIj 'ej
> > lughbejbe' mughta'ghachwIj je. laHwIj vIDubmeH Hol'e' Saja'chuqmoH..
> >
> > "I know I'm often wrong. So, I'm suspicious of everything. My sentences
> > are not certain to be correct and my translations aren't certain to be
> > correct either. I start discussions of the language itself to improve
> > my abilities." (Okay, I'm really stretching thin on /Saja'chuqmoH/ -- how
> > would you say "I discuss the language"?)
>
> Actually, you're pretty close. My pet theory has it that the sentence would
> be /Hol'e' maja'chuq/ "We discuss language." /Hol'e'/ is simply the topic
> of the sentence, and thus goes before the OVS part of the sentence (just
> like any other non-subject, non-object noun). Note: you can't discuss with
> yourself; /-chuq/ needs an object indicating plural subjects. /-moH/
> doesn't work in there at all.
There is nothing I know of that says putting /-'e'/ on the object of the
verb makes it chuvmey... /Hol'e'/ is the object of /ja'chuq/ -- what is
discussed? the language. Language is the object of the discussion. So
"we discuss the language would be /Hol'e' wIja'chuq/. The only way I
could see it NOT being that way is if you consider /ja'chuq/ to be simply
/ja'/ with a suffix -- but it appears together as a specific entry in the
TKD (p.90), and I *believe* it was officially noted by Okrand that words
like that should be treated as unique words (/lo'laH/ being the usual
example...) Tell me if I've misremembered what the ruling was...
> To say "I start discussions of the language," you might say /jIHmo' Hol'e'
> maja'chuqchoH/ or /Hol'e' maja'chuqchoH 'e' vIqaSmoH/.
Good suggestions, though I stil think it'd be /wI-/, not /ma-/ :)
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"When ideas fail, words come in very handy." -- Goethe