tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 08 14:07:14 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC Translation (and name) found ...
Qoram wrote:
Oops. Since I confused Qoram, let me answer his questions since they're
related.
>Quvar wrote:
> >In your phrase, I suggest you say "I chose this name:", using the #4
> >noun suffix {-vam} "this"
> >{pongvam vIwIvta'}
>
>Literally: /I've choosen it this name/? Why do I have to take /vIwIvta'/,
>even when I use /pongvam/ (this name). Or do I have to take the preffix /vI/
>everytime I choose or select something?
That's right. The object prefix {vI-} "I [do something] to it" is used
whenever the verb takes a direct object. Thus:
pong vIwIvta'
I have chosen a name
pongvam vIwIvta'
I have chosen this name
'oH vIwIvta'
I have chosen *it*
You would use the non-object prefix {jI-} when there is no direct object,
either stated or implied. Compare:
vIwIvta'
I have chosen it.
vs.
jIwIvta'
I have chosen.
In this case, the speaker doesn't feel the need to mention an object or
just wants to keep it a little vague. Okrand explains that the non-object
prefixes are
"used when there is no object; that is, when the action of the verb affects
only the subject (the 'doer') ... also used "when an object is possible,
but unknown or vague." (TKD p.33)
Here's an example with a bit of context, say, from a duel. Compare:
A: toH, maloS. nuHlIj DawIvta''a'?
Well, we're waiting. Have you chosen your weapon yet?
B: HIja', vIwIvta'.
Yes, I have (chosen it).
vs.
A: toH, maloS. bIwIvta''a'?
Well, we're waiting. Have you chosen yet?
B: HIja', jIwIvta'.
Yes, I have (chosen).
Using the object prefix shifts the focus slightly to the object of the
verb; i.e. what it is that you've chosen. Using the simple non-object
prefix keeps the focus on the action of the verb itself; i.e. whether or
not you've performed the action of the verb.
> >Or did you want to say "If you want to be free, then ?"?
>
>Yes, that's it. But Voragh translated it this way:
>
> bItlhabchugh, (vaj) yInoDQo' 'ej yIqawQo'!
> "If you want to be free, (then) don't retaliate and don't remember!"
>
>Now I'm a bit confused. In this translation my thought of "If you want to
>be" instead of "If you are" comes through.
Sorry, my mistake. I answered much too quickly without proofreading.
>I now tried to translate it, with a little help of some kind of an
>"analyser". There is no "want" in this sentence.
>
> /bIneHchugh tlhab/
> "If you want to be free"
Not quite. This is literally "If you want. He/she/it is free" (or: "they
are free").
>/neH/ and /tlhab/ are both verbs, so I'm not sure which one has to combined
>with /bI/ and /chugh/.
The correct translation is:
bItlhab DaneHchugh
If you want to be free
(lit. "You are free. If you want [that].")
This is an example of the "sentence-as-object" pattern as described in TKD
pp. 65-66. Note (1) that the expected pronoun {'e'} "that" is omitted when
the verb of the second sentence is {neH} "want"; and (2) that the
objective prefix {Da-} "you [do something] to it" is used since the phrase
{bItlhab} is the object of {neH}.
So, the whole sentence should have been:
bItlhab DaneHchugh, (vaj) yInoDQo' 'ej yIqawQo'!
"If you want to be free, (then) don't retaliate and don't remember!"
Sorry for the confusion.
--
Voragh "Damage control is easy. Reading Klingon
- that's
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons hard!" (Montgomery
Scott, STIV)