tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 23 21:29:51 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Subtle shadings of "then": Okrand's error ?

bob mcfaddin ([email protected]) 

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


DloraH <[email protected]> wrote:
> tlhoS jIjanglaHbe' je' 

What is the /je'/ in there?

Wasn't sure how to do it, so I left it as was...original song lyrics:

You give your hand to me,

and then you say hello,

and I can hardly speak,

my heart is beating so,

and anyone can tell,

you think you know me well,

but you don't know me.

(Really long run-on sentence, but stylistically, it works. I'm sure the songwriter's English teacher had a good little snit, too...but I'm trying to keep both the spirit and the meter of the song...(I may even perform it...at a piano, in full battle armor...and sunglasses.....wouldn't that be a hoot?)

> choSovchu' 'e' DaHar 'e' luyajbejqu' Hoch (better?)
> 'ach choSovchu'be' 
> 
> Stylistically, I'd suggest inverting {-be'} and {-chu'}, 
> though: {choSovbe'chu'} "you clearly don't know me" preserves 
> the original sense a little better than {choSovchu'be'} "it's 
> unclear that you know me".
> 
> 
> Well, I was looking at the rule that the rover follows the concept 
> being negated, and following the sense that, while you do in 
> fact know me, 
> you don't REALLY know me.So I was trying to negate only the 
> "perfectly" concept.Like, okay...you know me... but not as 
> well as you think you do...
> 
> (I'd like your comments on this part...can I negate an 
> qualifier to carry this connotation?)
> 
> Is this gramatically correct? Is there a better way to carry 
> that connotation?

choSovchu'be' - You do not completely know me. (You know me only a little bit.)

Excellent...then that's the one I wanted...like, you don't know the real me..I keep him hidden from you...see above lyrics.


> ghobe', Hoch ram SoHmo' jInaj 'e' DaSovbe' (no, you don't 
> know that you cause me to dream every night)
> 
> maj. For the original "You don't know the one who dreams of you at night" I 
> would have done it a bit differently, but this is fine.

The english implies that it is the person (which is doing the dreaming) that is not known.
The klingon implies that it is the act of dreaming that is not known about.

Then the Klingon is much closer to the meaning..."You don't know about the me that dreams about you at night...the me that you know isn't like that"


> I've had situations before wherein I wanted to say "about" 
> (and even "with")in a case like this... that you are the 
> subject matter of my dreams. How would you have done it?

"While I dream you/we..."
"While I dream, I think about you."


> For I never knew the art of making love, (half of skill lies in knowing 
> what you can do..the other half lies in knowing what you cannot. I'm 
> not ready to try this one yet.)

Hmm. 
This is a tough one.


> SoHvaD parmaqwIjmo' 'oy' tIqwIj (My heart aches due to my 
> love for you)

This english "love" seems to be refering to the touchy-feely emotion inside. This is not /parmaq/. /parmaq/ as a noun refers to
the physical action of a couple klingons scratching, ripping, breaking bones...

qaSaHqu'chu'mo' ...
Or how about... qaneHqu'mo' meQtaH tIqwIj (My heart burns because I want you so..)

> jIyoHHa'mo' 'ej jIjaqHa'mo' narghpu' 'ebwIj 'e' vIchaw' 
> (Because I was not brave, and because I was not bold, I allowed my chance to escape)

> 'ebvetlhDaq DaneHqu'jaj....(an attempt at a 
> "drastic recast")

DloraH







jajvam lururbogh jajmey'e' lutu'lu' muja'ta' SoSoywI'

juDmoS
		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

Back to archive top level