[737] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: tlhobghach: "with"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Apr 30 17:36:25 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 93 16:48:37 -0400
'avrInvo':
>"I do not argue with you (pl.). I argue with your commander."
>"maghoHtaHbe' jiH tlhIH je tay'. maghoHtaH jiH ra'wI'ra' je tay'."
This translation is technically correct, but I'm not convinced it
captures the flavour of the original English. The translation is
very literal, describing the current state of affairs. However, my
gut feeling on reading the original English is that the speaker is
trying to show his intent, rather than just describe what's going on.
That feeling of intent seems to get lost when "I" is no longer the
sole subject. So I might do it as:
maghoHchuqtaH jIH tlhIH je 'e' vIHechbe'. maghoHchuq jIH ra'wI'ra'
je 'e' vIHech.
The other possibility, of course, is to try to move the argue-ee
into more of an object kind of position; the problem with this is
obvious: we don't have a good way to express "with". Ideally we'd
have a type 5 noun suffix for this, but we don't, so our options are
(just focussing on the first part):
(1) tlhIHvaD jIghoHtaHbe'
(2) [tlhIH] SaghoHtaHbe'
(3) tlhIHmo' jIghoHtaHbe'
In (1), we basically apply the "indirect object"qoq rule, from 6.8
(p180). Never wholly satisfying, it is none-the-less there and
legal.
In (2), we take advantage of the murky-if-at-all distinction between
direct and indirect objects in Klingon (see FTGD, HolQeD 2.1), and
just make tlhIH the object.
If one were determined to use a noun suffix, I think the one which
mostly closely captures the meaning is in (3). Remember that -mo'
doesn't always get such a literal translation (for instance, see
SuSmo' joqtaH on page 28). Hey, the French use "against" (contre)
as the preposition for arguing (if I remember correctly), so why
can't Klingons use -mo'?
So this gives us a total of 5 viable translations. Which one you
pick is principally a matter of style and nuance.
--Krankor
