[98981] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] ghargh'a' HoD'a' je -- cha'DIch
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gaerfindel)
Sun Jun 22 09:09:26 2014
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 09:09:05 -0400
From: Gaerfindel <gaerfindel@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E877123DEC83@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 6/21/2014 4:29 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>> loD mach tu'lu'. loDHom tu'lu'.
> Not a grammatical mistake, but this gives me the feelings that you're tal=
king about two separate people: A small man and a boy.
>
> If there were a known Klingon word for "dwarf", I might recommend somethi=
ng like
> loD mach tu'lu'. *dwarf* ghaH.
> "There was a small man. He was a dwarf."
>> rut bID loD pong.
> I'm afraid I can't check from here, but I believe one ordinarily places =
=ABbID=BB after the thing that's in half; for example, I know "skirt" has b=
een translated as =ABpaH bID=BB ("half a dress/robe"), at least.
>
> Of course, one could argue that =ABloD bID=BB, "man's half", would be mor=
e appropriate for a man who's been cut in half, whereas =ABbID loD=BB ("hal=
f:ish man") is more appropriate for a man who exhibits some sort of ... "ha=
lfiness".
Well here's where I ran into some trouble. Not having a copy of the BoP =
myself, I guessed that BID, like any other "number element", would come =
before the noun it describes. But I can see your point; {BID loD} does =
rather connote "half a man}, while {loD BID} comes across closer to the =
appellation "half-man."
>
> Also, you'll want a -lu' on that =ABpong=BB, unless you've specified else=
where who it is that calls him "half-man" (in which case you'll probably wa=
nt a lu- prefix instead, to indicate that he's called this by more than one=
person).
maj.
>> chIch ta' HIvjeDaq tarHey'e' nopupu' loDHom}
> As you say, this is kind of a difficult sentence to translate.
> It seems you're trying to use a sentence as an object here, with the man =
as the subject of the second sentence.
> I'd advise you to restructure this, for example by putting the man in the=
first sentence, rather than the second.
>
> To illustrate:
> Let's say we have the sentence "This guard is known to kill prisoners."
> This can be rephrased as "It is known that this guard kills prisoners."
> which can be translated as
> =ABqama'pu' HoH 'avwI'vam net Sov.=BB
The problem here is {net Sov} *cannot* apply as it is *not* truly know =
if Tirion poisoned King Jeoffrey.
But let's break this down, as you say:
Sentence 1:
{*Jeoffrey* ta' HIvje'Daq tar lIchlu'ta'}
lit. "Into King Jeoffrey's cup someone purposefully poured poison.""
Sentence 2:
{ *dwarf*'e' lupum Hoch}
"All accuse the dwarf."
Hmmm...Klingon seem to work better in short, choppy sentences. Maybe =
that ought to be my "guiding star" from now on.
~quljIb
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
