[91564] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH wej:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Thu Jan 5 15:06:58 2012
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111231222438.047655a8@flyingstart.ca>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:06:20 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Qov <robyn@wabyn.net> wrote:
> motlh *Dugh* luqeltaHvIS jonwI' 'Ij 'e' tIv HoD 'ach DaH *Dugh* Heghbat
> lunab.
lugh'a' <motlh> Daq? wot tlhejbogh vIqIm. "He usually enjoys
listening" DaHech qar'a'? "He enjoys usually listening" vIlaD.
> qaStaHvIS may' law' vajar QantaH *Dugh*.
vaj *Dugh* Qanrup vajar.
> buSchuqmo' latlh jonwI'pu' qaH'engvaD ja',...
'utbe' <-vaD>. DuQoymeH nuv bIjatlhchugh, nuvvam Daja'.
> choH qaH'eng qab. lajlaw'.
Every once in a while, I notice something like this. It reads
perfectly well in Klingon, with no hint of anything unusual. As soon
as I start to translate it I remember that there's a rich set of
descriptions for facial expressions that an author would likely have
used had it been composed in English.
> jatlh jonpIn. "...*Dugh* naQ ma'laHbe'mo' lupDuj choQmaj,
> loQ Duj wIlaghnIS. latlh HanDogh wIchevnISba' 'a ghaytan meH wIchevnIS je."
tlham tIH tlhuDwI' Hutlhlaw' *veS*.
> "Duj bowoDmeH bolagh jatlhlaw' Sa'," jatlh vajar.[118]
> [118] Or uh, what prefix would you put here for "qImyal said you ..."?
Yeah, I got a sense of disorientation when I read it. I'd pretend the
problem doesn't exist, and say it this way:
Duj bowoDmeH bolagh 'e' vIQub. muja'law' Sa'.
The first sentence doesn't have to be a quotation. It's just a statement.
> Sa' lumISmoHlaw'pu' jonwI'pu' tlhach mu'mey.
pIj jonwI' yajbe'law' vu'wI' 'e' vI'ollaH.
> DaH Duj polmeH 'utbe' woQDaj.
maj. woQ welnIS 'e' parba' vajar.
> "HoD 'oH je patlhwIj'e'," jatlh jonpIn.
I'm uncomfortable with this particular "to be" construction. This is
probably just a personal quirk of mine, but it seems wrong to say it
that way. Her rank isn't a captain, or "the" captain, but that's how
my brain really wants to interpret it. It's not like saying {nuH 'oH
je ghopDaj'e'}.
For some reason, it sounds right to me in the other direction:
{patlhwIj 'oH je HoD'e'}. I think it's the type 4 noun suffix on
{patlh} that keeps the "is a/is the" interpretation of {'oH} at bay.
I'm not quite sure why I don't have the same problem with {HoD}
referring to the name of the rank instead of a person having that rank
when it's used as the subject.
I'd like to hear what others have to say about it.
> "bota'ta'DI' DujvetlhDaq bIrmoHmeH taS vItu'chugh, boSop."
buQ'a'? qID'a'? ram. qu'bej, 'ej...
> "lu', HoD!" jatlh ne'pu' ghIq mej.
...luvuvba'.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
