[2814] in tlhIngan-Hol
First attempt at translation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Jan 26 15:19:54 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 15:05:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: Creede Lambard's message of Wed, 26 Jan 1994 10:50:16 -0800 (PST)
<Pine.3.89.9401261047.A11750-0100000@eskimo.com>
>From: Creede Lambard <creede@eskimo.com>
>Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 10:50:16 -0800 (PST)
>I would like to try my hand at translating a form of Terran literature
>that appears to heretofore have been neglected, and which should be
>addressed, if only so it can confuse Klingon Terran scholars. :D
mamISnIS'a'? DaH yapbe''a' mISmaj? :-)
>This is my first attempt at translation into Klingon of anything
>longer than two words, by the way.
batlh bInID.
>ben'a' jatlh QubwI' *qan chang* quv:
I don't know that the "-'a'" is really adding anything. "ben" is probably
sufficient. I dunno, would "?ben law'" work for "many years ago"? It
seems reasonable at first glance.
>puS Hu' joqghargh jIH 'e' jInajpu'.
Definitely lose the "puS". "Hu'" has been used for "some unspecified
number of days ago, but a period of time better measured in days than
another unit", which is really what you want. "joqghargh" is
imaginative... "wave-worm"? OK, "joq" is a verb and we don't have a
mandate for verb-noun compounding. Stick with just "ghargh"; does the
precise species really matter? You were wise not to put "-pu'" in your
first sentence; it doesn't belong here either. See my article in HolQeD:
since you establish a time frame with "Hu'", the "-pu'" serves as a
perfective, meaning that a few days ago you *had* dreamed... which isn't
really what you're after. The simple verb is all you need. However, it
should be "vInaj", since the pronoun "'e'" is the object of the verb.
>'ach DaH,
>joqghargh jIH 'e' naj *qan chang* jIH,
>pagh *qan chang* jIH 'e' naj joqghargh jIH, jISovbe'.
Not quite; too many verbs in these sentences. You need some "-bogh"s to
make these relative clauses. "I am a serpent *which drems* that it is qan
chang", etc. That would be "*qan chang* jIH 'e' najbogh ghargh'e' jIH" and
so on. Also, it should be "'e' vISovbe'", since "Sov" needs the pronoun
"'e'". This would give something like:
ghargh ghaH 'e' najbogh *qan chang*'e' jIH
pagh *qan chang* 'oH 'e' najbogh ghargh'e' 'e' vISovbe'.
I lost your use of "direct quotes", so to speak, in dreaming. I'm not sure
I needed to. That is, you seem to be saying "I am a serpent dreaming "I am
qan chang""; maybe it should be "I am a serpent dreaming it is qan chang".
I'm really not sure on this one. Here's what seems to be a slightly
cleaner method: split 'em up. This loses the "-bogh"s also.
'ach DaH,
*qan chang* jIH 'ej ghargh jIH vInajtaH
pagh ghargh jIH 'ej *qan chang* jIH vInajtaH 'e' vISovbe'.
I like the -taH's, here and also in the "-bogh" style construction too.
Anyone who starts in on precedence rules of conjunctions gets a phaser up
the snoot.
This of course also glosses over something I never quite was sure of
either: is "pagh" really the right word when English says that "or" that's
really not an "or" but a question conjunction? I suppose "pagh" or "qoj"
would be right (depending on the situation) for lack of anything better.
>This might be clearer if I knew of a construction for the
>phrase "ever since then".
Actually, I thought that came across fine with "'ach DaH".
batlh bImugh 'e' DanIDpu'. tlhIngan Hol yIjatlhqa'!
>-- Creede
~mark
