[3555] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: KLBC "Parrot"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Mar 3 18:36:01 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: "trI'Qal" <DOBELBOWER%OPUS@cutter.mco.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 1994 18:16:17 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: CUTTER::IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
------ When I parsed out that last sentence I got;
-
-jatlhlaHlaw'bogh : which is seemingly able to speak
-Ha'DIbaH : animal
-'oH : it (pronoun)
-Sajvam'e' : this Pet (Topic)
-
-I beleive this translates to "This pet is an animal which is seemingly
-able to speak." If I got that right, why is the pronoun 'oH needed here?
-
-Why not; jatlhlaHlaw' Ha'DIbah Sajvam'e'
-
- Qapla'
- -qor
Your translation was absolutely correct; that is exactly what I meant to say.
I will not answer the question about 'oH, since others have done so already.
-OTOH, on the assumption that a Saj has to be a Ha'DIbaH, you
-could just say
- jatlhlaHlaw' Sajvam
-and be done with it.
-
-- marqem
The reason I didn't do it this way, is because I was stating what the thing
WAS. If there had been a Klingon word for "parrot" or "bird", I would have
put it there. Since there isn't any such words, I put in a decriptive
translation, and then gave the terran word after (in the next sentence).
Sometimes, I think too much like a Klingon, it seems. If what I just said
makes no sense, forget it. I was thinking of the translation as a whole
rather than individual lines. The idea of the KLBC isn't STYLE, it is making
yourself understood... and as long as I was understood (as it seems I was), I
am not going to worry about it.
And besides, qor got to learn some new grammar from it. :)
"Matt Whiteacre"vo':
-Saj vIghajbe'
-be'nal wej puqbe' je vIghaj
-tlhIngan Hol lujatlhbe'
-"parrot"vaD tlhIngan Hol DaghojmoHghach DuH law' <- Continue on next line
- qorDu'vaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoHghach DuH puS
-targh [a dog] luneH puqbe'oypu'wI'
-
-Is there a better way to say that monster sentence I have? Is what I have
-even correct? The intension was to compare trI'Qal's likelihood of
-teaching his parrot to the likelihood of me teaching my family.
Ewwww... I like the law'/puS construction, and, at first glance, what you have
appears grammatical (I am purposely ignoring the various debates on -ghach and
whether or not you can use it on verbs with prefixes here, so PLEASE don't
start!). I understood what you were saying. I would have said it slightly
differently, though. In this case, you could have gotten away with something
like this:
tlhInagan Hol lughojpa' qorDu'wIj, tlhIngan Hol jatlhlaH "parrot"lIj.
"Before my family learns Klingon, your parrot will be able to speak it."
Does that work for you?
Now, my reply:
wa'logh targh vIghajpu'.
'oHvaD "Max" wIpongta'.
QaQ targhmey.
targhmey vIparHa'.
juHmajDaq SaHDI' qorDu'wIj, 'avta' "Max".
reHchuqlaH je puqpu' targhmey je.
'ach puqpu'lI'vaD targh Daje'chugh, chaq luQorghnIS puqpu'lI'. {{:)
-----------------------------------
Do you want me to start including the terran translations for everything I
send to you? Will that help you? It isn't a problem...
'ej be' jIHbejqu'. {{;)
--HoD trI'Qal
tlhwD lIy So'
