tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 03 08:56:05 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Translation
> > Tyler Fisher:
> > > Here's a line of dialogue I've translated into Klingon.
> > > Tell me if you think I did an okay job:
> > >
> > > {vay' DaSeHlaHbe'bogh DabuSchugh, HoS Danatlh neH
> > > 'ej jagh DachenmoH.}
> > > Thinking about what you can't control only wastes
> > > energy and creates its own enemy.
Voragh:
> > A small suggestion: I would either omit "its own" or add {-Daj}. {jagh
> > DachenmoH} means only "you create an enemy". And since {-Daj} could refer
> > to any of the nouns {vay'}, {HoS} or {jagh} I'd tag the topic with {-'e'}:
> >
> > vay''e' DaSeHlaHbe'bogh DabuSchugh, HoS Danatlh neH 'ej
> > jaghDaj DachenmoH.
SuStel:
>I don't agree with the {-Daj}: "its" in "its own enemy" in the English
>doesn't refer to the thing you can't control, it refers to the "thinking."
Possibly. To me "its" refers to "what you can't control".
>And without the {-Daj}, there's really no reason to add the {-'e'} either.
True, if your interpretation is correct. (Is there more context for this
line of dialogue?)
I was focusing more on the difference between the simple possessive "its"
vs. the emphatic possessive "its own". Klingon doesn't really have a
simple way to make this distinction. I could find only two examples where
Okrand translates "own" in lines of dialogue written by someone else:
vaj toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'.
That means the Federation will be sending a rescue ship of its own. ST5
Here he uses {-Daj}, though he does add {-bej} "certainly, definitely" to
the verb. Is {-bej} reinforcing {-Daj} (i.e. "of its own"), does it convey
Klaa's certainty (i.e. "that means..."), or both?
tlhIngan ngoQmey chavmeH HoH tlhInganpu'.
Klingons kill for their own purposes. TKW
Here he repeats the subject noun, perhaps stressed a bit in
pronunciation: "Klingons kill (in order) to achieve KLINGON purposes."
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons