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

[De'vID jonpIn]

Quvar:
> That's funny, I did not follow this thread, nor did I read the subject
line - but when I read the lines, I recognised immediately which movie this
was :-)

maj.  mubelmoH mu'meylIj.

De'vID:
> > KIRK: qatlh naDev maHtaH?
> > McCOY: chaq 'utlh patlh wISuqmo' lulop.

QeS 'utlh:
> Perhaps just {lop} "they celebrate" rather than {lulop} "they celebrate
it"?

Done.

De'vID:
> > SCOTT: maj.  qen bIQ Duj vIje'pu'.
> > UHURA: potlhqu'nIS qepvam[1].  'ampaSDaq ghojmeH qep vIche' 'e'
vIruchnIS.

QeS 'utlh:
> I actually think {potlhqu'nIS qepvam} captures the sense well here. No
issue
> with {-nIS} that I would raise, though my canon database is no help.

But is it {qepvam} that needs to be important.  Someone pointed out to me
recently that {-nIS} expresses a need on the part of the subject.  Here,
it's really Uhuru who requires that {qepvam} be important.  So I'm still
not entirely sure about this.  Well, I can always change this later if I
think of something better.

De'vID:
> > CHEKOV: patlh jen ghajwI'vaD neH 'oHbe''a' qepvam'e'?
> > KIRK: naDev maHchugh Hoch, nuqDaq ghaH *Sulu*'e'?

QeS 'utlh:
> {naDev maHchugh Hoch} grates because of the overt and hence third-person
noun
> despite the first-person pronoun; it feels mismatched. Also, you're
missing
> {-'e'} in the first clause. Maybe replace {Hoch} with {Hoch maH'e'}?

{naDev maHchugh Hoch maH'e'} - Done.

De'vID:
> > McCOY: *Sulu* HoD'e'.  Qu' ta'taH.

QeS 'utlh:
> {chav} {rInmoH} ghap Daqelpu''a'?

Actually, I thought about {ghIgh bajtaH} "he's earning his necklace (slang
for assignment)".  Then I thought maybe it was too slangy.

{Qu' chavtaH} it is.

De'vID:
> > KIRK: nuqDaq ghaH *Spock*'e'?

Quvar:
>> KIRK: nuqDaq ghaH *Spock*'e'?
>
> We do know that in "to be at a place" constructions, the pronoun usually
takes the suffix {-taH}. This was done correctly in the first sentence, but
missing in this question. Is this an eception here?

To quote from the movie: "An omission".  This was an error on my part, it
should've been with {-taH} throughout.  Thanks for catching this.

De'vID:
> > SPOCK: maj po.  cha' wen tlhIngan maS pIraqSISDaq jorqu' vay' 'e' jIH
> > DIvI' Duj.  tlhoy lutlhIlmo'law' 'ej yepHa'mo'law' jor.

QeS 'utlh:
> Watch your suffix ordering: {lutlhIllaw'mo'}, {yepHa'law'mo'}.

HIvqa' veqlargh.  Fixed.

De'vID:
> > maS Qaw'lu'mo' lamqu'choH yuQ muDchaj 'ej HeghchoHmoH[2].

QeS 'utlh:
> I have no problem with {HeghchoHmoH}. What do you think about {SuQchoH}
> "begin to be toxic" for "pollute", instead of {lamqu'choH}?

Oh, good one.  Yes, {SuQ} is much better.

De'vID:
> > qaSpu'DI' vaghmaH tera' DISHeymey[3] loj yInSIpchaj.

QeS 'utlh:
> I think {vaghmaHHey} is okay, though I'd be tempted just to say {vaghmaH
> tera' DISmey} and forget the approximation altogether.

Yes, I think I'm just going to drop all the "about", "approximately", etc.,
from all references to numbers.

De'vID:
> > 'Iqmo' Huch'e' poQbogh QI',
>
QeS 'utlh:
> I'd say {QI'chaj}, just to be clear whose military's being talked about.

Done.

De'vID:
> > yapbe' tlhIngan Huch jo 'ej lotvam luma'ruplaHbe'[4].

QeS 'utlh:
> Agreed, I'm not sure {ma'} is quite the right word... How about {jey}?
> I like what you've done with {-ruplaHbe'} here, by the way.

After considering the options, I think {qaD} is better here.  They're not
even ready to confront the problem, let alone defeat it.

De'vID:
> > wen mutungHa'mo' vulqangan Duy'a',
>
QeS 'utlh:
> {wa'wen}, with or without a space.

D'oh.  I had intended to change this from {wa' wen} to {qaStaHvIS nungbogh
jar}, because Spock was talking about an event that happened "last month"
rather than "one month ago" (subtle difference).  Apparently I got
interrupted in the middle of making my change and forgot about it.

De'vID:
> > maja'chuq jIH ghorqan[5] je.
>
QeS 'utlh:
> I don't think we have it in canon, but for my part, since Gorkon is
> played by a speaker of English English I'm going to plead for {ghorqon}
> here, which is also the form used in the Klingon Hamlet.

Ah, well, if it's {ghorqon} in the original Shakespeare, then {ghorqon} it
is.

Thanks very much for your comments and suggestions!

--
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120115/898cc4a8/attachment.html>