tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 27 11:57:53 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qawQaH 'ej <<'u' HeHDaq Qe'>>
From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
> tetlh qawHaqDaq *Nick Nicholas* wot moHaq qawQaH vItu'pu':
Where are you getting the word */qawQaH/? Is it a real word?
> <<nIteb nIteb>>
> "they filled you (s) up all by themselves"
>
> 'ej qawQaH latlh vIqon:
If */qawQaH/ isn't really a word, and you're trying to say "mnemonic
device," I'd use /qawmeH mu'tlhegh/ "sentence for remembering."
Then, when you want to say "another X," you use /latlh X/.
Finally, exactly where /qon/ "record" ceases to pertain to "composing"
something is a little vague. To be safe, I'd use /'ogh/ or something when
you're talking about something so far removed from a song.
Thus,
'ej latlh qawmeH mu'tlhegh vI'ogh
And I wrong additional sentences for remembering.
> <<ghotI' ghotI'>> "repair my fish for me" (lugh'a'? Is this one of the
ways
> the prefix trick can work, or not?)
"Repair us fish?" I suppose it follows the letter of the dratted prefix
trick, but I would certainly never say such a thing. There comes a time
when one has to step back and remember that the prefix trick was invented so
Okrand could cover his butt for sticking too close to his original English.
Also, you added a "my" into the translation that doesn't belong there.
> <<tIlIj tIlIj>> "forget your vegetations"
maj.
> <<DIvo' DIvo'>> "we propelled them from the rubbish"
maj.
> <<tI>>mey law' ghajlaH'a' vay'? pagh DuH'a' wa' <<tI>> neH?
jISovbe'.
Regarding your subject title: you've run afoul of the recently-much-violated
rule in TKD that says that you can't have a Type 5 suffix on the first noun
of a noun-noun construction. Don't say */'u' HeHDaq Qe'/. Say /'u' HeH
Qe'/ "Restaurant of the edge of the universe."
> <<'Iv SoH, maqoch? Zaphod Beeblebrox SoH'a'???>> jatlh ghew'a'.
> "Well, who do you think you are, honey?" quivered the insect, "Zaphod
> Beeblebrox or something?"
I don't suppose we have the exact equivalent for "honey" in this context . .
. .
You've lost the idea that the insect doesn't actually think that Zaphod is
Zaphod.
<'Iv SoH, maqoch? Zaphod Beeblebrox SoH 'e' DaQub'a'?> jatlh ghew'a'.
> <<nachDu' yItogh>> jatlh Zaphod.
> "Count the heads," said Zaphod quietly.
tItogh. And let's not lose the adverbs here.
<nachDu' tItogh> jatlh Zaphod; tam.
> <<Zaphod Beeblebrox'e' SoH'a'??> ja' ghew.
> "You're Zaphod Beeblebrox?" asked the insect.
>
> <<HIja', 'ach yIjachQo', pagh wa' Zaphod Beeblebrox neHqu'bej Hoch nuv>>
ja'
> Zaphod.
> "Yes, but don't go shouting or they'll all want one," answered Zaphod.
I dunno if you can join an imperative and a statement like that. We always
see a /-chugh/ construction (e.g., bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh).
> <<Zaphod Beeblebroxna''e' SoH'a'??>> ja' ghew'a'.
> "You're THE Zaphod Beeblebrox?" asked the insect.
Heh.
> <<ghobe', Zaphod Beeblebroxqoq'e' jIH; tachDaq ngaSwI'Daq jav jIHmey
> Daje'laH 'e' DaSovbe''a'>>
> "No, just A Zaphod Beeblebrox; didn't you hear I come in six packs?"
Interesting way to avoid the problem of the joke revolving around the
definite and indefinite articles.
SuStel
Stardate 3402.3