[84024] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: KCD 3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue Jan 22 14:47:16 2008
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:44:30 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <f5b478ef0801212119y9b46e76m3f40f48f02c61d93@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
qa'vaj wrote:
> This includes the first decision point. I tried everything I could think of
> and transcribed what happens for each of the options.
> -- tlhIngan Hol --
>
> loD moj torghan puqloD 'e' vIbejtaHvIS jupwI' torghan retlhDaq vIQamlaHmo'
> jIbel.
You can't have {-taH} on the second verb of a sentence as object
construction. Just change the {-taHvIS} to {-DI'} and it works fine.
> puqloDlI'vaD cha'nob vIqempu'
I'd use {-ta'} here. It's not wrong with {-pu'}, though.
> [ghawran:]
>
> wuqlaHbe'gach! nov qo'nganpu'vaD rop rur!
Reduce {nov qo'nganpu'vaD} to {novvaD}.
"YOU off-worlders" is a little trickier. I usually resort to apposition:
tlhIHvaD, novvaD, rop rur!
> tlhoy bIQub.
>
> tlhIngan vIttlhegh wIghaj: bIvangchugh vaj 'uQ DaSop. bIQubchugh vaj 'uQ
> Damoj.
Does the "official" proverb have {vaj} in it?
I'd use {tu'lu'} instead of {wIghaj}.
> Doch vIjatlhpu'bogh Dayajbe''a'?
How about {qeS} instead of {Doch}?
> <<Dochvam wuqnISlu', Dochvetlh wuqnISlu'.>>
The question isn't what to decide upon, it's which choice to make.
lugh'a' wIvvam? lugh'a' wIvvetlh?
> yIwuq! wIvlIjmo' qaS Dochmey poH pIm 'e' yIqaD!
I couldn't figure this out at all.
wIv! wanI''e' qaSmoHbogh wIvlIj DaH tISaHQo'!
> 'a DaH yIwuq!
'a DaH yIwIv!
> pIch Daghajbe'. QuptaHvIS tlhInganpu' lughoj. vay' Daruch 'e' dura'DI'
> loDnI'lI' vay'vetlh Daruch
> pagh bISuvrup.
Erg. I've never been happy with objects on {ruch}, and mixing that with
the prefix trick... Ick. Anyway, none of that is necessary:
Dura'DI' loDnI'lI' yIruch!
or as a statement:
Dura'DI' loDnI'lI' bIruch.
> qoj SoHvaD Ho'Du' 'angchugh be' Da'om
> pagh bangwI' Daghomrup.
Aw, no fun! And far too euphemistic for Klingons. (And didn't you mean
{banglI'}? Or does Gowron enjoy the swinger lifestyle?)
pagh Dangaghrup.
> Hoch ghu'vam'e' vanglu'.
>
> yIjaH, yInIDqa'.
I wouldn't interpret that "go" literally.
SuH, yInIDqa'.
> bIrop'a'? bIrIQ'a'? QIt bIvIH 'a nom bIvIHlaHba'.
If we keep the literal "move" here (moving the mouse), how about:
DolIj DaghurlaHba'!
> ['u' 'uch ghawran, ja':]
{'u'}? "I got the whole world in my hands!" You mean {'oy'naQ}.
> Dochvam qaja'qa'Qo'.
Just {qaja'qa'Qo'}.
> ghojmeH toy'bogh HaDI'baH yapba' loSlogh. {* not sure
> if I can use this as a noun *}
I wouldn't. What happened to the Pakled?
loSlogh paqleD'e' Daja' yaj paqleD.
> vay' yIruch!
Just {yIruch} gets the meaning across just fine. So does {yIvang}. If
you must have an object, try {vay' yIta'}.
> tlhIngan DamojmeH qaghojmoHbe'laHlaw' Human mIwmey vIlo'taHvIS, vaj DaH
> qaghojmoHmeH tlhIngan mIwmey vIlo'.
The first {-meH} clause is one of those negative-in-the-wrong-place
kinds, but it makes sense with the next {-meH} clause.
> (ghItDajDaq 'uy 'u' 'er'In. wovchoH 'u' 'er'In.)
'oy'naQ
> nuq Daruchpu'?
nuq Data'pu'?
> qhawran 'avwI' le' DaqaD'a'?
How about {QanmeH 'avwI'} instead of {'avwI' le'}?
> nadev Quj 'e' luHechbe', yejquv DevwI' lu'avtaH. SepIch tuq boq DevwI'.
> tuqlIj 'oH, paq.
> bIQuj 'e' yImev. bIQujtaHDI' QeHna' DaqaD.
bIQuj 'e' yImev, vay' Damawchu'pa'.
> *DIragh! (pong 'oH?, 'avwI'Daj bot ghawran)
jISovbe'.
> bIghoj 'e' Datagh neH, 'a choqaDqa'chugh vImevbe'.
This need some continuous aspect. It also needs a pronoun to clarify
(otherwise it sounds like Gowron is willing to stop you from learning):
bIghojchoHtaH neH, 'a choqaDqa'chugh chaH vImevbe'.
SuStel
Stardate 8059.7
--
Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.
http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html
