[tlhIngan Hol] Silmarillion - For am I not a Vala also ?

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Aug 23 07:00:57 PDT 2019

On 8/23/2019 9:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> fse:
> Behold the truth of all that I have spoken, and how thou art banished 
> unjustly. But if the heart of Feanor is yet free and bold as were his 
> words in Tirion, then I will aid him, and bring him far from this 
> narrow land. For am I not a Vala also ? Yea, and more than those who 
> sit in pride in Valimar; and I have ever been a friend to the Noldor, 
> most skilled and most valiant of the people of Arda.

maj. ghItlh 'ay' DawIvpu'bogh vInaD.

> tlh:
> jIjatlhpu', 'ej mu'meywIj vIt yItlhoj. nIghImpu' 'ej nIghImtaHvIS 
> nIQIH. pa'logh, tlhabpu' feanor tIq 'ej Qob bamvIpbe'pu'; *tirion*Daq 
> jatlhtaHvIS feanor, mu'meyDaj rur tIqDaj. choHpu'be'chugh ngoDvam, vaj 
> vIQaH, ghaHvaD Sepvam langvo' vIghoSmoH, 'ej vIHopmoH. *vala* 
> jIHbe''a' je ? HIja'. *valimar* luDab *valar* chaHbogh 'op'e', 'ej 
> Hem. 'ach vala jIHqu'. *noldor*pu' yoHqu' law' Hoch *arda* nuvpu' 
> yoHqu' puS. 'ej reH *noldor*pu'vaD jup jIHpu'.
> Comments:
> 1st:
> Reading the "for am I not a Vala also ?" gives me goosebumps. It's 
> fracking perfect.

That's the thing about Tolkien: he was literally a genius with words. He 
knew what sounded pleasing to the ear and could put such things 
together, seemingly effortlessly. This is why I don't translate Tolkien 
passages every day: my poor translations wouldn't hold a candle to the 
effect of Tolkien's original.

Your translation, meaning no offense, is very choppy and difficult to 
read compared to the original. When translating Tolkien, you'll want to 
capture the emotional effect of the words more than the literal meaning 
of the words.

I believe that a good-sounding Klingon sentence is one that isn't afraid 
to use the tools given in /The Klingon Dictionary,/ but which doesn't 
overuse them. Good Klingon style isn't necessarily short, choppy 
sentences, but neither is it three subordinate clauses, a sentence 
conjunction, and a sentence-as-object all combined in one. Context often 
makes a better sentence glue than morphology.

> 2nd:
> {nIghImtaHvIS nIQIH} for "thou art banished unjustly".
> I know that someone can say: by describing it this way, it can be 
> perceived, that while he was being exiled, he was being wronged for 
> some other reason irrelevant to the "his being exiled".
> But I disagree. I believe that context makes it clear that "by being 
> exiled he was wronged".

I don't have a problem with using this sort of context. I encourage it 
if it reduces the number of syntactic constructions you have to put into 
a sentence. I probably wouldn't have understood *nIQIH* to mean that 
they were unjust to you without further explanation.

How about *nIghImpu'DI' ruv luHutlh*/when they banished you, they lacked 

> 3rd:
> {ghaHvaD Sepvam langvo' vIghoSmoH}
> I wondered whether we can have a noun with a {-vo'} being the object 
> of the verb which follows it.
> But since we know, that a noun with {-Daq} *can* be an object, and 
> since the {-Daq} is a type-5, I thought, "why not ?"

You can only use a noun with *-Daq* as the object of a verb when that 
verb has an inherent locative sense, giving its object a locative 
meaning. (And it's considered redundant.) Presumably, the only way you 
could use a noun with *-vo'* as the object of a verb is if the verb has 
an inherent ablative sense, giving its object an ablative meaning.

Now, *ghoS* is an interesting verb, because not only are we explicitly 
told it has a locative sense and can take a noun with *-Daq* as its 
object, but we also know that part of the definition of *ghoS* is /go 
away from./ *ghoS* is a verb that might just possibly let you use *-vo'* 
on its object. We're not told that it can do this, and we're not told 
that any verb has an inherent ablative notion to it, so I can't declare 
that this is a legal thing to do, but it does have some logic behind it 
beyond /why not?/

Of course, you'd be perfectly safe using a normal, non-object ablative, 
so why not do that?

> 4th:
> {*noldor*pu' yoHqu' law' Hoch *arda* nuvpu' yoHqu' puS}
> I put the {-qu'} in {yoH}, because a little bird told me, that in 
> paq'batlh we have the following:
> {SoH rallaw' law' Hoch rallaw' puS}
> Of course, I could have just written:
> {*noldor*pu' yoH law' Hoch *arda* nuvpu' yoH puS}
> But reading m-w, I understood "valiant" as describing someone who is 
> more brave, than "just brave", so I thought that shoving a {-qu'} 
> would be called for.

I believe that /valiant/ means not only brave, but showing that you're 
brave. It doesn't really mean /very brave./

As for adding *-qu',* eh. I have a feeling this is perfectly fine. I 
don't have all the various allowed forms of *law'/puS* handy for 
checking, but adding a *-qu'* doesn't change the grammar of the quality, 
just the meaning of the word.

> Also, as far as the {Hoch *arda* nuvpu'} of {*noldor*pu' yoHqu' law' 
> Hoch *arda* nuvpu' yoHqu' puS} is concerned..
> I distinctively remember having seen a Ca'Non law'/puS sentence where 
> the {Hoch} was similarly part of a noun phrase, and not just on its 
> own. Sadly, I don't remember that sentence..

*targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS*/your targ has a 
bigger brain than all your ancestors put together/ (PK)

> However, I *could* have written it as:
> {*arda* nuvpu''e' *noldor*pu' yoHqu' law' Hoch yoHqu' puS}
> But I didn't.

I'd have preferred it. When an idea is superlative rather than 
comparative, it's best to use the actual superlative form.

Why would you say /our team is//better than all other teams/ when you 
can say /our team is the best/?

> 5th:
> {*valar* chaHbogh 'op, 'ej Hem. 'ach vala jIHqu'} for "(being a vala) 
> more than those who sit in pride in valimar"
> I *could* have said this in a "classic" law'/puS  construction:
> {valar'e' jIH Dun law' valimar valar Dun puS}
> But I feel that by saying chaH/jIHqu', expresses more the "feeling" of 
> "they are valar but I AM vala".

*/Vala/ chIwmeH, jIH nIv law' /Valimar Valar/ Hem nIv puS*/In order to 
epitomize a Vala, I am superior to the proud Valar of Valimar./

> And after all, lets be honest..
> Who actually reads the klingon that is being written here anyway ?

/Tolkien/ DamughDI', vIlaD jIH'e'.

One last minor note before I translate the passage myself:

Singular: /Noldo, Vala
/Plural: /Noldor, Valar/

These days I prefer to use the foreign plural in translations, but if 
you want to pluralize these with *-pu',* say /*Noldo*/*pu'* and 

*jIjatlhpu' 'ej jIvItpu'. boghImlu'pu'DI', lujpu' ruv. /Tirion/Daq 
jatlhpu' /Feanor/; tlhab 'ej jaq 'e' lu'ang mu'meyDaj. tlhabtaHchugh 
tIqDaj 'ej jaqtaHchugh, ghaH vIboQ. puHvam langvo' vIqem. /Vala/ 
jIHbe''a' je? HIja'; /Vala/ chIwmeH, jIH nIv law' /Valimar Valar/ Hem 
nIv puS. /Arda/ nugh'e' /Noldor/ po' law' Hoch po' puS 'ej /Noldor/ yoH 
law' Hoch yoH puS. reH /Noldor/ jup jIHpu'.*


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190823/39004acc/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list