tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 21 10:43:06 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: toy'wI''a' (n)
At 06:10 PM 8/19/2004, Qes lagh wrote:
>ghItlhpu' Paul:
>
> >DIHIvbej. qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a' DImoj.
> >"We undoubtedly attack them. In their world, we would be slaves."
>
>Interesting theory. It's useful to remember that Klingon has nothing like
>the English subjunctive mood, or a translation for "would", so I think this
>is a good candidate. Although, I'm a bit mystified as to why Okrand didn't
>use {-nIS} here: {DIHIvnISbej} "we definitely need to attack them". With
>{pagh} in the sentence, it's not so important.
>
>Although, I want to ask: When I watched ST:VI, I thought that the officer in
>fact said {qo'chajDaq toy'wI'chaj DImoj} "in their world, we would become
>their slaves". I might have to go back and have a look at this, but I
>distinctly remember hearing oral consonants rather than glottal stops in the
>third word.
(qavan Qes lagh!)
FWIW, I listened to the passage several times, and what I hear is:
{DIHIvbej. qo'chajDaq toy'wI'ta' DImoj.}
(I assume the 'ta' is a slight pronounciation error.)
I agree that they way Paul has translated seems to beg for {-nIS}. But
interestingly, I don't feel the need for {-nIS} in the original Klingon in
the context of the scene. I think that Paul has it right, but the passage
can be interpreted with a slightly different mood:
"Obviously we attack. We will become slaves in their world."
As if he is offering a set of opinions, rather then a cause-effect
analysis. That's the way I sense it from the scene.
Dar'Qang
qo''a'lIj DachenmoHtaH