[926] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: CastleTower's recent post (or: Well, I asked for it... :) )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue May 25 19:00:57 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: trI'Qal <DOBELBOWER%OPUS@cutter.mco.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: 25 May 1993 17:57:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: CUTTER::IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
Qanqor has asked me to correct the errors in the following post from
CastleTower (note: there is *always* the distinct possiblity I mistranslated
something here. Please let me know if I did. I am still new to this meself.
{{;) ) :
>If at first you don't succeed...
>
>nuQwI' tlhInganpu' jIrI'!
Having two older brothers myself, I can understand the connection between "one
who annoys" and "brother", but I don't know if anyone else can. :) If you meant
something else there, I did not catch it. Also, the word order should (I
think) be reversed for "Klingon brothers" (I have no idea which rule this
would be, but I can remember "tlhIngan Hol", and this is the same kind of
construction). The prefix on "rI'" is not correct. There is an object
("tlhIngan loDnI'pu'"), so it needs vI-, not jI-. So, I get:
thlIngan loDnI'pu' vIrI'!
>Soy'ghach ghItlhtaH jIpay.
Again, the confusion on the prefix. what I actually got here when I translated
before looking at what was provided was "I regret to be writing clumsiness" (-
ghach being on the verb "clumsy"). Other than that, this line is fine:
ghItlhtaHghach Soy' vIpay.
>chaq wa'DIchDaq napghach mu'tlhegmey.
Uh, first, I have *no* idea if "wa'DIchDaq" is "legal" or not. I imagine that,
technically, it is not, as "wa'DIch" is a number, not a noun. I imagine you
could just drop the -Daq...? Again, the verb doesn't need -ghach if it is
being used as an adjective. It needs only to follow the noun it modifies. The
other thing is there is no verb in this sentence. Based on the terran
translation provided, I gathered the intent was "Perhaps I write simple
sentences at first":
chaq wa'DIch mu'thleghmey nap vIghItlh.
>qeSlIjvaD 'ej Sun vIQamrup Hev!
I am not sure if you can have a verb follow another with the meaning "to
<verb>. In fact, the more I think about it, you cannot. (it would actually go
before the main verb as well). je (not 'ej, that is for sentencese) comes
after the 2 nouns. An 'e' would be needed in there, too... and another -vaD,
and the jI- should be vI- in either case:
qeSlIjvaD SunvaD je vIHev 'e' jIQamrup!
Personally, I would use the purpose clause here, -meH:
qeSliJ Sun je vIHevmeH jIQamrup!
Much shorter. :)
Okay, let's hear it... how many errors did I catch that were not really there,
and how many were there that I didn't catch?
--trI'Qal
