tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 07 15:04:06 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Request for comments
- From: bob mcfaddin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Request for comments
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
- In-reply-to: 6667
--- QeS lagh <[email protected]> wrote:
> ja'pu' juDmoS:
>
> >bIghHa'vam wIche' tlhInganpu'.
> >(We Klingons run this prison.)
>
> Hm. I don't know whether this can strictly be done;
> although there's no
> canon against it, there's none for it either, AFAIK.
> I would have done it as
> two sentences: {tlhIngan maH 'ej bIghHa'vam wIche'}.
>
The idea I was trying to convey is that this is a
Klingon prison, as opposed to, say, some namby-pamby
"comfortable" feddie lockup with color tevees and
sech...
> >QumwI' bolo' 'e' boSuqQo'.
> >(You won't get a phone call.)
>
> I wouldn't use {Suq} with {'e'} in this way. {Suq}
> means "get, acquire", and
> to me it gives the sense of actually laying hands on
> something. I suspect
> you may have tried to translate the English "You
> won't get to use the
> phone", in which "get" is more idiomatic.
Okay... I misinterpreted the explanation as I read
it.. kinda thot I might be...so I'll use the gen-neg
rover -be'. I was attempting to disavow the concept of
entitlement as presented in the aforementioned "Club
Fed" prisons.
>
> I like {QumwI'} for "phone" - remember though, we
> already have {ghogh
> HablI'} "telephone" (literally, "voice
> transceiver"). Additionally, the
> normal negative is {-be'}; {-Qo'} is only used for
> refusals, like {vIta'Qo'}
> "I won't do it!". {boSuqQo'} literally means "you
> refuse to get it".
>
> I would say {ghogh HablI' bolo'laHbe'} "you won't be
> able to use the phone"
> or {ghogh HablI' bolo' 'e' wIchaw'Qo'} "we refuse to
> let you use the phone".
>
> >chutpIn boSuqQo'.
> >(You won't get a lawyer.)
>
> {chutpIn}... I like it. But in the past, we've
> generally shied away from
> creating new compound nouns, so it's probably best
> just to leave it as the
> noun-noun construction {chut pIn}. Again, watch out
> for {-Qo'}: {chut pIn
> boSuqbe'} "you won't get a lawyer", not {chut pIn
> boSuqQo'} "you refuse to
> get a lawyer".
>
> >bopabchugh vaj SutaHlaH.
> >(If you follow the rules, you can survive.)
>
> pup. majQa'!
I thot I had at least part right! Kewl!
>
> >narghlaH pagh. cha'logh nargh 'e' lunIDlaH pagh.
> >(No one can escape. No one can try twice.)
>
> Not bad! A couple of small things - {pagh} is
> probably singular (!) rather
> than plural, and so wouldn't use the prefix {lu-}.
I dunno... I look at the use of pagh as "no one"
similarly to the use of pagh as "nothing"...not
necessarily singular... but I could be wrong, so I bow
to your Grammarian-ness.
> Also, the translation
> "no-one can try to escape twice" obscures the fact
> that in {cha'logh nargh
> 'e' lunIDlaH pagh}, the subject is actually escaping
> twice, not trying
> twice.
Excellent point... never considered that possible
interpretation.
I'd just shift {cha'logh} in front of the
> {'e'}: {nargh cha'logh 'e'
> nIDlaH pagh}.
>
> All in all, quite good. Keep 'em coming!
Roger wilco, over and out...
jajvam lururbogh jajmey'e' lutu'lu' muja'ta' SoSoywI'
juDmoS
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail