[Tlhingan-hol] qo''e' tu'bogh pagh - 'ay' wa'maH

[De'vID jonpIn]

De'vID:
> > (ghebHom rIl beq)

QeS 'utlh:
> I thought the instrument used was more like a Dov'aghHom "whistle"?

ghaytan bIlugh.  ('ach ram mu'vam; mu'mey lujatlhbe'bogh bIHmo', bIH poQbe'
"subtitle".)

De'vID:
> > KIRK: ghorqon Qang.
> > GORKON: qIrq HoD.
> > KIRK: *Spock* HoD DaSovlaw'bogh qalIHneS.
> > GORKON: HoD, tagha' ghom cha' qabDu'... qatlho'qu'.

QeS 'utlh:
> I like the cha' qabDu' phrasing, though since they've never met face
> to face before I think qIH or perhaps even tay' might be better than
> ghom.

maj.  {tagha' tay' cha' qabDu'}.  pItlh.

De'vID:
> > puqbe'wI' ghaH 'aSetbur[1]'e'.

QeS 'utlh:
> Like loghaD I thought that 'atlhetbur was canon, but I can't find it
> anywhere. I like 'atlhetbur better, but that's just an opinion.

ghaytan lugh pongvam.  vIlo' 'e' vIlaj.

De'vID:
> > QI' qeSwI'wI', qerla' 'ech.  'ej cheng Sa' ghaH,

QeS 'utlh:
> It'd sound more natural if you phrased this as cheng Sa' ghaH
> nuvvam'e'.

qatlh?  chay' pIm?

De'vID:
> > ra'ghomquv DevwI''a'wI'[2] ghaH.

QeS 'utlh:
> I wonder if "Chief of Staff" refers to the same position as that of
> the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. military. If that's the case,
> I'd put this as ra'ghomquv pIn'a'.

maj.

De'vID:
> > CHANG: reH qaghom vIneH, HoD.

QeS 'utlh:
> Again, ghom isn't the right verb here. qIH "meet for the first time"
> is what you're looking for.

{qaqIH reH vIneH}.  pItlh.

De'vID:
> > KIRK: vIlaj... 'ach vIyajchu'be'.
> > KERLA: DuHo'bej, qIrq...
> > CHANG: ...latlh SuvwI'na' Ho'mo' SuvwI'.

QeS 'utlh:
> maj.

De'vID:
> > KIRK: lugh...

QeS 'utlh:
> "Right" here is idiomatic; I'm not sure that lugh captures it.

Hmmm... chaq {vIyaj} jatlh qIrq 'e' vIchoH.

De'vID:
> > lurghvam ghoS.  loQ maleng 'e' botIvbej.

QeS 'utlh:
> botIvbej shows too much certainty for what Kirk says in English. I
> would put it as chaq 'e' botIv.

maj.  vIlaj.

De'vID:
> > CREWMAN wa': rurchuqchu' Hoch chaH.
> > CREWMAN cha': He'So' 'e' yIqel.

QeS 'utlh:
> Perhaps pIwvetlh DalarghlaH'a'?

"What about that smell?"vaD Qatlh mughmeH Qu'.

nuq qech Hech mu'tlheghvam?  chaq {pIwvetlh yIqIm}.  'ach ghelbogh
mu'tlhegh 'oHbe'.

De'vID:
> > jatlhlaH nIvqu'wI'pu' neH 'ej...

QeS 'utlh:
> maj. Not sure if you've thought of it, but given that this line's
> used, I wonder if in this scene you could perhaps make use of -mey
> or bIH to show the crewmen are casting aspersions on the Klingons'
> ability to use language?

qechvam vIqelbejqu'ta'!  'ach chIch vay' vIjatlhQo'.

Background: Krankor told me that the reason he doesn't participate here any
more is because every single discussion in Klingon ends up being
sidetracked into a discussion -- in English -- about grammar.  (Is there a
name for this, sort of like an analogue of Godwin's Law?  Maybe we can call
this Krankor's Law.)  I'd promised Krankor that I'd try to use Klingon
exclusively on the mailing list, and stay away from
discussions/debates/arguments about grammar, unless I participated in
Klingon.

I did think about the issues raised by the "beings capable of language"
distinction here: if a group of beings were incapable of speech, except for
the "top of the line" models, is {bIH}/{-mey} used when referring to the
entire group?  Would you then use {chaH}/{-pu'} for just the subset of
them?  I just didn't want to say anything about it so I wouldn't trigger a
sidetracking grammatical discussion.  But since you've already raised the
issue now, we can discuss it.

{jatlhlaHbe' bIH.  jatlhlaH 'op le'qu' neH}, chaq 'e' vIlo'.  vuDlIj nuq?

De'vID:
> > VALERIS: Qu' boghaj'a', loDpu'?
> > CREWMAN wa'/cha': HIja', qaH.
> > VALERIS: vaj pIpyuS yIghor.

QeS 'utlh:
> maj. We also have the idiom qul DIr yISop "eat the fire skin" that
> means "hurry up, move quickly!".

mu'tlheghvam vIlIj.  chaq qaq.

--
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120213/bc71f735/attachment-0001.html>