[tlhIngan Hol] hellraiser 1987 - we'll tear your soul apart

mayqel qunen'oS mihkoun at gmail.com
Thu Mar 4 10:47:28 PST 2021


Thank you SuStel for taking the time to read and comment on this post!
Your comments clarified many things I ignored/misunderstood.

movie:
> It was a mistake! I didn't mean to open it! It was a mistake! You can all go to hell!
jIH:
> (jIQaghpu'! vIpoSmoHqangpu'be'! jIQaghpu'! ghe''or lujaH! Hoch!)
SuStel:
> jIQaghpu'! vIpoSmoHpu' 'e' vIHechbe'! jIQaghpu'! ghe''or yIjaH!
> Context makes it clear that she's talking to all of you. You don't need an explicit Hoch,
> nor does it really fit here.

I fell in the trap of trying to translate the "you can all go" as "all
of you", which I knew can't be translated in Klingon; so the next best
thing I could think of was placing a {Hoch} at the end of the {ghe''or
yIjaH!}, which I wrongly wrote as {ghe''or lujaH}. I can't believe I
messed up the prefix.

movie:
> You solved the box.
jIH:
> buq'Ir QapmeH Ho'DoS Datu'ta'
SuStel:
> buq'Ir Dapanpu'.

I'd totally forgotten the verb {pan}.

movie:
> Taste our pleasures.
jIH:
> belmeymaj DaSIQnIS
SuStel:
> I don't know what "taste our pleasures" means,
> but if it's metaphorical in English, you might as well keep it metaphorical in Klingon.
> belmaj tIwaH.

Pinhead says to the woman that she must accompany them to hell, where
she'll taste what the Cenobites perceive to be pleasures, although to
the humans it's suffering.

I thought of using the {waH} but I wasn't sure it could be used
metaphorically in this sense. I have a hard time discerning in klingon
which words can be used metaphorically, and which not. For example,
could we use the {naH} metaphorically to say things like "the fruits
of their labor"?

movie:
> Please... go away and leave me alone!
jIH:
> Saqoy'.. naDevvo' yIghoS, 'ej HIlon!
SuStel
> naDevvo' peghoS

I don't know why but seeing this part of the scene, I got the
impression that she was addressing only Pinhead. On second thought
though, it makes sense that she was actually wishing that all of them
went away, so indeed the {peghoS} is more appropriate.

movie:
> Wait! Wait! Wait! Wait, please, wait!
jIH:
> peloS! peloS! peloS! peloS, Saqoy', peloS!
SuStel:
> This would be an ideal time for clipped Klingon: loS! loS!

I don't know why, but when it comes to clipped Klingon, I either
always forget it, or when I do remember it, I remember it only for
giving orders to animals, computers, or in combat.

movie:
> You've done it before, right?
jIH:
> pa'logh, jaSHa' Suvangpu', qar'a'?
SuStel
> Done what? I've never seen this film,
> so I don't know how vague this line is supposed to be.

She asks whether this whole "Cenobite appearing and dragging people to
hell" which is happening for her, is something which the Cenobites
have done for other people too in the past. I wrote this way, thinking
that in the context of that scene no further clarification is
necessary.

movie:
> Many, many times.
jIH:
> jaSHa' mavangpu', 'ej ghIq mavangqa'pu', 'ej ghIq mavangqa'pu'
SuStel:
> pIj!

I wrote it this way, because I was vaguely remembering an answer
'oqranD gave at the 26th qep'a':

----- the words of god starteth -----
> “many times” or “time and time again”
> Use pIj “often”. One way to express this if being emphatic is periphrastically: V ‘ej V-qa’ (‘ej V-qa’...) (where V is the
> repeated action): qagh vISoppu’ ‘ej vISopqa’pu’ ‘ej vISopqa’pu’
> “I’ve eaten gagh many times.”
----- the words of god endeth -----

(hahaha, I couldn't resist..)

movie:
> To a man called Frank Cotton?
jIH:
> jaSHa' frank cotton loDvaD Suvangpu''a'?
SuStel:
> loDvaD Frank Cotton ponglu'bogh?

Believe it or not, initially I thought too of writing the {loDvaD
Frank Cotton ponglu'bogh?}. But since I couldn't add the interrogative
{-'a'} because of the type-9 {-bogh}, I finally went with the {jaSHa'
frank cotton loDvaD Suvangpu''a'?}.

movie:
> Oh, yes
jIH:
> oh, HIja'
SuStel:
> Just drop the oh when translating things like this. In English, it's just an intensifier.
> You can't intensify Klingon HIja' yes. In other cases, you might turn it into an appropriate
> suffix, like jutlhejbej Oh, you're coming with us! or bIrqu' Oh, was it cold!

I was wondering about that, while I was writing the initial post.
Indeed, something seemed strange in writing {oh, HIja'}. Thanks for
clarifying this.

movie:
> I can... I can lead you to him! And you can take him back instead of me!
jIH:
> vISammoHlaH.. tlhIHvaD ghaH vISammoHlaH! 'ej ghe''orDaq ghaH botlhap; tutlhap 'e' qa'!
SuStel:
> To reproduce the hesitation, I'd imagine how she's been talking about him,
> and do this: ghaH... tlhIHvaD ghaH vISammoHlaH! In your version, she's already
> worked out what she can do, so there's no reason for her to hesitate in saying the
> whole thing the first time. My way, she's searching for something to say about him,
> something they want to hear, so she starts with an object, ghaH, and then works out
> what she wants to say.
> I'm not sure whether "take him back" is supposed to mean return him (tatlh) or take him
> when you go back (tlhap). Either way, you can say ghaH'e' him (instead of someone else)
> and leave it to context to imply the instead of me part.
> ghaH'e' botatlhlaH! You can return him (instead of someone else, like me)!
> SucheghDI', ghaH'e' botlhaplaH! When you return, you can take him
> (instead of someone else, like me)!

I agree 100% with all your comments.

Again, thank you for taking the time share your thoughts on this translation!

~ Dana'an
I love you maltz


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list