<<poSayDon>> continued
Here's the second and final section of <<poSayDon>>. roD bIQ'a' yu'eghDaq lIgh poSayDon, che'wI' nuH'e' jeqbogh wej DuQwI' 'uchtaHvIS 'e' luHar ghot law'. ghu'vam tu'DI' poSayDon -- 'ej Qu'Daj'e' yonHa'choHghachDaj meq wa'DIch 'oH je ghu'vam'e' -- ghaH yIvqu'choHlu'. What irritated him most — and it was this that was chiefly responsible for his dissatisfaction with his job — was to hear of the conceptions formed about him: how he was always riding about through the tides with his trident. yuQ-bIQ'a' bIS'ubDaq ba'bejtaHvIS poSayDon, SImtaH. DaltaHghachDaj qaghmeH, DuH wa' neH ghaj ghaH: pIjHa' yupItIr Such, 'ach motlh lengvamvo' cheghDI', QeHqu'taH poSayDon.
When all the while he sat here in the depths of the world-ocean, doing figures uninterruptedly, with now and then a trip to Jupiter as the only break in the monotony — a trip, moreover, from which he usually returned in a rage.
'ej vaj pIjHa' bIQ'a' legh poSayDon. nom 'olumpoS HuDDaq SaltaHvIS neH ghaH, bIQ'a' leghlaH, 'ej not bIQ'a' qoDDaq lengchu'be'. jatlhtaH poSayDon, van qo' 'e' loStaH ghaH. ngugh ghaytan qaS poHHom tam, mI'meyDaj Qav SImqa'meH, 'ej ghIq vanbejpa' qo', nomqu' Hoch SuchlaHmeH ghaH. Thus he had hardly seen the sea — had seen it but fleetingly in the course of hurried ascents to Olympus, and he had never actually traveled around it. He was in the habit of saying that what he was waiting for was the fall of the world; then, probably, a quiet moment would be granted in which, just before the end and having checked the last row of figures, he would be able to make a quick little tour. poSayDon DalchoHmoH bIQ'a'. ghaHvo' pum che'wI' nuHDaj. bIQ HeHDaq ba'taHvIS ghaH, jot. 'emDajDaq bIH qoj. nachDaj DungDaq puv bo'Degh'e' mISmoH Qun HoSDaj. gho rur HeDaj. Poseidon became bored with the sea. He let fall his trident. Silently he sat on the rocky coast and a gull, dazed by his presence, described wavering circles around his head. QImSIr
On 1/25/2017 7:50 PM, Brian Cote wrote:
roD bIQ'a' yu'eghDaq lIgh poSayDon, che'wI' nuH'e' jeqbogh wej DuQwI' 'uchtaHvIS 'e' luHar ghot law'. ghu'vam tu'DI' poSayDon -- 'ej Qu'Daj'e' yonHa'choHghachDaj meq wa'DIch 'oH je ghu'vam'e' -- ghaH yIvqu'choHlu'.
What irritated him most — and it was this that was chiefly responsible for his dissatisfaction with his job — was to hear of the conceptions formed about him: how he was always riding about through the tides with his trident.
*Qu'Daj'e' yonHa'choHghachDaj meq wa'DIch 'oH je ghu'vam'e'* There are two potential errors here. First, you've got what appears to be a type 5 noun suffix followed by another noun in a noun-noun construction. TKD rules against doing this. Second, you seem to have an *-'e'* on both sides of the pronoun. I'm not sure what effect you were going for by including *-'e'* on *Qu'Daj,* but your sentence would seem to work just as well without it: *Qu'Daj yonHa'choHghachDaj meq wa'DIch*/the first reason of the beginning satisfaction of his job./ The whole aside seems confusing to me. I have to think hard to bring the Klingon to the English. I don't think *wa'DIch* necessarily implies /chief./ I'd choose completely different wording: *'ej Qu' yonHa'ghachDaj'e' meqvam ngoy' law' Hoch ngoy' puS.* *yIv*/annoy/ is slang. Do you want to use slang here, or the non-slang *nuQ*? The English does not use slang here.
yuQ-bIQ'a' bIS'ubDaq ba'bejtaHvIS poSayDon, SImtaH. DaltaHghachDaj qaghmeH, DuH wa' neH ghaj ghaH: pIjHa' yupItIr Such, 'ach motlh lengvamvo' cheghDI', QeHqu'taH poSayDon.
When all the while he sat here in the depths of the world-ocean, doing figures uninterruptedly, with now and then a trip to Jupiter as the only break in the monotony — a trip, moreover, from which he usually returned in a rage.
*ba'bejtaHvIS* is not incorrect, but I'm uncertain why you chose to qualify this word. *DuH wa' neH* should be *wa' DuH neH.* *QeHqu'taH* is also not wrong, but I'm not sure it's exactly right to include the *-taH.* When Poseidon returns from Jupiter, is he in a continuous rage? Or are you just reporting his status at the time he returns, in which case you can just say *QeHqu'*?
'ej vaj pIjHa' bIQ'a' legh poSayDon. nom 'olumpoS HuDDaq SaltaHvIS neH ghaH, bIQ'a' leghlaH, 'ej not bIQ'a' qoDDaq lengchu'be'. jatlhtaH poSayDon, van qo' 'e' loStaH ghaH. ngugh ghaytan qaS poHHom tam, mI'meyDaj Qav SImqa'meH, 'ej ghIq vanbejpa' qo', nomqu' Hoch SuchlaHmeH ghaH.
Thus he had hardly seen the sea — had seen it but fleetingly in the course of hurried ascents to Olympus, and he had never actually traveled around it. He was in the habit of saying that what he was waiting for was the fall of the world; then, probably, a quiet moment would be granted in which, just before the end and having checked the last row of figures, he would be able to make a quick little tour.
There is a subtle difference between using *legh* and *leghpu'* in the first line. *pIjHa' bIQ'a' legh poSayDon* means /Poseidon rarely sees the s//ea//:/ it's a general condition that Poseidon doesn't get out much to see the sea. *pIjHa' bIQ'a' leghpu' poSayDon* /Poseidon has rarely seen the sea:/ up to this point, Poseidon hasn't seen much of the sea. The former is a statement of condition; the latter is a history. Either can be used here, though the version with *-pu'* is closer to the English. The same goes for the rest of this paragraph: are you trying to speak of things that are true without actually referencing things he has actually done or not done, or are you trying to show that those things have or haven't happened? *nom 'olumpoS HuDDaq SaltaHvIS neH ghaH*/while he is merely ascending on Mount Olympus quickly./ I don't understand this clause, and I think the problem is with that *neH.* I don't understand what it's supposed to be doing here. You can dispense with the *-Daq* here: *nom 'olumpoS HuD SaltaHvIS*/while he is ascending Mount Olympus./ *'ej not bIQ'a' qoDDaq lengchu'be'//*/and he never imperfectly travels on the ocean's interior./ This sentence seems pretty mixed up. Maybe change it to something like *'ej not bIQ'a' veH HochDaq lengchu'pu'*/and he has never completely traveled on all of the ocean's boundary./ *van qo' 'e' loStaH ghaH.* It is illegal to use a type 7 suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object construction. Okrand breaks this rule a lot, but it's still a rule. *jatlhtaH poSayDon, van qo' 'e' loStaH ghaH.* There are a number of errors here. When *van* /end (an event, voyage, battle, play, etc.)/ is used, the subject causes the object to end. You can say this as *qo' vanlu'*/the world is ended./ It is illegal to use a type 7 suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object construction. Okrand does it a lot, but it's still a rule. *qo' vanlu' 'e' loS*/he waits for the world to be ended./ When using a verb of speech as described in the sentence-as-object section of TKD, the speech itself is reported in the first person. *jatlh poSayDon, qo' vanlu' 'e' vIloS*/Poseidon says he's waiting for the world to be ended; Poseidon says, "I wait for the world to be ended."/ Notice I didn't use the *-taH* there: Poseidon isn't continuously saying this; he has a habit of saying it. Without the *-taH,* it is a thing Poseidon might say, not a thing he is continuously saying. If you want the idea of this habit being regular, use *roD: roD jatlh poSayDon, qo' vanlu' 'e' vIloS.* *ngugh ghaytan qaS poHHom tam, mI'meyDaj Qav SImqa'meH.* Purpose clauses must be /before/ the phrases they modify, unlike other dependent clauses. In any case, Poseidon isn't getting a momentary silence IN ORDER TO check his figures, so the purpose clause isn't really appropriate anyway. This advice on purpose clauses, and the earlier advice on the grammar of *van,* also applies to the last sentence of this paragraph.
poSayDon DalchoHmoH bIQ'a'. ghaHvo' pum che'wI' nuHDaj. bIQ HeHDaq ba'taHvIS ghaH, jot. 'emDajDaq bIH qoj. nachDaj DungDaq puv bo'Degh'e' mISmoH Qun HoSDaj. gho rur HeDaj.
Poseidon became bored with the sea. He let fall his trident. Silently he sat on the rocky coast and a gull, dazed by his presence, described wavering circles around his head.
*poSayDon DalchoHmoH bIQ'a'.* *Dal* means /be boring,/ not /be bored. /Try something like *poSayDon SeyHa'choHmoH bIQ'a'*/the sea begins to cause Poseidon to be unexcited./ I'm not sure *jot* is the right verb here. *tam* seems to be better. *'emDajDaq bIH qoj.* Two errors here. First, you forgot the final *-'e'* needed for a to-be sentence. Second, The proper way to say /behind him/ is *ghaH 'emDaq,* not *'emDajDaq.* We learn this in /Klingon for the Galactic Traveler:/ the way you said it marks you as a speaker of the Sakrej dialect. I'm not sure there being a cliff behind him equals sitting on a rocky coast. Furthermore, every time Okrand uses a locative on a to-be sentence, he also uses *-taH.* It may be most correct to say *ghaH 'emDaq bIHtaH qoj'e'*/cliffs are behind him./ Alternatively you could say *ghaH 'emDaq qoj lutu'lu'* or possibly *ghaH 'emDaq qoj tu'lu'* (because it's still unclear whether *tu'lu'* is a special construction that can ignore the verb prefix, which Okrand has sometimes used). *nachDaj DungDaq puv bo'Degh'e' mISmoH Qun HoSDaj. gho rur HeDaj.* I think you forgot a *-bogh* and were trying to do two things at once. The English says the gull flies around his head, not over his head. Let's assume that *bav*/orbit/ is not the right verb for this; your *rur* solution is a good one. You could also have said *gho ghoS bo'Degh*/the bird travels in a circle./ This time you really need a *-taH* on *puv,* because this IS a continuous event, not just the report of the habit of the bird or a general truth that this bird tends to fly around his head. If I were given a chance to ask Maltz for a word, I think the word I'd ask for would be /around. /It would, ideally, be one of those locative words like *'em* and *Dung.* *bIQ'a' HeH gheghDaq ba'taH poSayDon 'ej tamtaH. pa' SaHmo' poSayDon mIStaH bo'Degh 'ej gho ngaDHa' ghoStaH puvtaHvIS.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj! De' law' chongeHta'. De'vam DunvaD qathlo'qu'. qaStaHvIS wa' jaj, cha' jaj joq QInlIj vIlegh 'ej jIyeptaHvIS, vIqel. ghIq ghaytan qaghel. QImSIr
On 1/26/2017 3:18 PM, Brian Cote wrote:
maj! De' law' chongeHta'. De'vam DunvaD qathlo'qu'. qaStaHvIS wa' jaj, cha' jaj joq QInlIj vIlegh 'ej jIyeptaHvIS, vIqel. ghIq ghaytan qaghel.
qaQaHlaHpu'mo' jIquv. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I've re-read your comments a few times and I really don't have any questions. Everything you wrote makes sense to me. I'll take some time next week to work over the second part again and let you take another look at it. I've submitted a few comments of my own re: your comments on my first draft. {ej Qu'Daj'e' yonHa'choHghachDaj meq wa'DIch 'oH je ghu'vam'e' -- ghaH yIvqu'choHlu'.} With {Qu'Daj'e'} I was trying to topicalize it. And by trying to do that, completely overlooked that I really didn't need to. Yoursentence: {'ej Qu' yonHa'ghachDaj'e' meqvam ngoy' law' Hoch ngoy' puS.} I really like it. I think I was a little scared of the Klingon comparative myself. With {ba'bejtaHvIS} I was trying to convey the "when all the while" at the start of the sentence: "When all the while he sat here in the depths of the world-ocean ..." In that it points to what is really happening, as opposed to what people merely thought was happening. "There is a subtle difference between using *legh* and *leghpu'* in the first line. *pIjHa' bIQ'a' legh poSayDon* means /Poseidon rarely sees the s//ea//" With {legh} vs {leghpu'} I'll have to think over it carefully. Both possibilities are true in the story. Your sentence: {bIQ'a' HeH gheghDaq ba'taH poSayDon 'ej tamtaH. pa' SaHmo' poSayDon mIStaH bo'Degh 'ej gho ngaDHa' ghoStaH puvtaHvIS.} I like it! QImSIr
On 1/27/2017 11:06 PM, Brian Cote wrote:
With {ba'bejtaHvIS} I was trying to convey the "when all the while" at the start of the sentence: "When all the while he sat here in the depths of the world-ocean ..." In that it points to what is really happening, as opposed to what people merely thought was happening.
The type 6 suffixes, with the exception of *-chu'*, indicate the certainty of the /speaker./ They're not so good for describing the certainty of any of the people the speaker talks about. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
While reconsidering this sentence: {'ej not bIQ'a' qoDDaq lengchu'be} /and he had never actually traveled around it/ I realized that the English translation is a little dubious. The German uses "durchfahren" which means to "travel through" in the sense of to "travel through (a tunnel)" or "pass (beneath a bridge." And so, I came up with: {'ej not bIQ'a' qoD(Daq) chIqchu'} and/or {'ej bIQ'a' qoDDaq ghaHtaHvIS poSayDon'e', not lengchu'} The second sentence seems very clunky to me, although I'm not sure if the first one is correct grammar-wise. Second question: {legh} v {leghpu'}. In the story the only chance Poseidon will get to travel the oceans is in the far future, in a mythical End of Times. Although for the purposes of the story, it _is_ treated like a historical fact. So, my question is: can you use {leghpu'} if the event it's referring to (the event that brings the hypothetical into the historical) will happen far, far in the future? QImSIr
On 1 February 2017 at 00:19, Brian Cote <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com> wrote:
While reconsidering this sentence: {'ej not bIQ'a' qoDDaq lengchu'be} /and he had never actually traveled around it/ I realized that the English translation is a little dubious. The German uses "durchfahren" which means to "travel through" in the sense of to "travel through (a tunnel)" or "pass (beneath a bridge."
Consider {vegh} to translate the German "durchfahren". -- De'vID
On 1 February 2017 at 00:19, Brian Cote <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com> wrote:
While reconsidering this sentence: {'ej not bIQ'a' qoDDaq lengchu'be} /and he had never actually traveled around it/ I realized that the English translation is a little dubious. The German uses "durchfahren" which means to "travel through" in the sense of to "travel through (a tunnel)" or "pass (beneath a bridge."
ja' De'vID:
Consider {vegh} to translate the German "durchfahren".
No, not really. First, "fahren" is not only what a car does, but also what a boat does. Next, the verb {vegh} is defined as going through something like a "hole" or a "gate", something that has some kind of surrounding, you go through something. Remember that for the translation of the museum, Okrand used the verb {chIq} for crossing the ocean - but that's not what this is about here either. I understand the phrase as that he never sailed the ocean entirely, i.e. he did not see everything of it. Maybe {lengchu'be'} is really enough. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 1/31/2017 6:19 PM, Brian Cote wrote:
Second question: {legh} v {leghpu'}. In the story the only chance Poseidon will get to travel the oceans is in the far future, in a mythical End of Times. Although for the purposes of the story, it _is_ treated like a historical fact. So, my question is: can you use {leghpu'} if the event it's referring to (the event that brings the hypothetical into the historical) will happen far, far in the future?
If I understand what you're saying, then yes. *wa'vatlh nem 'aplo' poSmoHlu'*/the container will be opened in one hundred years;/*wa'vatlh nem 'aplo' poSmoHlu'pu'*/the container is opened in one hundred years./ The latter refers to a completed action; the former is explicitly not a completed action. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Another way to translate the future perfect would be "will have been opened". --Voragh On 1/31/2017 6:19 PM, Brian Cote wrote: So, my question is: can you use {leghpu'} if the event it's referring to (the event that brings the hypothetical into the historical) will happen far, far in the future? SuStel wrote: If I understand what you're saying, then yes. wa'vatlh nem 'aplo' poSmoHlu' the container will be opened in one hundred years; wa'vatlh nem 'aplo' poSmoHlu'pu' the container is opened in one hundred years. The latter refers to a completed action; the former is explicitly not a completed action.
I intentionally avoided that translation because it obscures the answer to the question. English "will have been opened" can mean it will be opened a year from now or ninety-nine years from now. The Klingon means it's opened one hundred years from now and that the opening is completed. Compare the canonical sentence, *wa'maH loS ben jIboghpu'*/I was born forty years ago./ It doesn't mean that as of forty years ago I was already born; it means that forty years ago my birth took place and was completed. The perfect tense ("occurs prior to the time context") is not the same as the perfective aspect ("comes to completion"). Okrand HAS used a perfective suffix to indicate perfect tense, but it's defined, and usually works in canon, as perfective aspect. His English translations don't always elucidate the difference. On 2/1/2017 11:15 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
Another way to translate the future perfect would be “will have been opened”.
--Voragh
On 1/31/2017 6:19 PM, Brian Cote wrote:
*//*So, my question
is: can you use {leghpu'} if the event it's referring to (the event
that brings the hypothetical into the historical) will happen far,
far in the future?
SuStel wrote:
If I understand what you're saying, then yes. *wa'vatlh nem 'aplo' poSmoHlu'*/the container will be opened in one hundred years;/*wa'vatlh nem 'aplo' poSmoHlu'pu'*/the container is opened in one hundred years./ The latter refers to a completed action; the former is explicitly not a completed action.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Well, I probably should have posted the original sentence. Here it is: "So hatte er die Meere kaum gesehen ... und niemals wirklich durchfahren." /So he had hardly seen the seas ... and never really traveled through them./ Correct me if I'm wrong, but the image I get is of him actually driving through the waters, submarine-like, on his chariot (earlier Kafka used "kutschieren" /to drive a horse drawn carriage/). QImSIr
Am 01.02.2017 um 21:07 schrieb Brian Cote:
Well, I probably should have posted the original sentence.
You didn't inlcude the message you are referring to, but this seems to go to me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the image I get is of him actually driving through the waters, submarine-like, on his chariot (earlier Kafka used "kutschieren" /to drive a horse drawn carriage/).
Yes, this is true. But the text does not refer to him crossing the sea, {chIq} which implies just getting from A to B. What he says is like travelling all over the place. It's like a US american saying that he has not seen the entire country. Traveling the country is something different from flying form NY to LA. And {vergh} dos not work, because that's going trough a door, not an ocean. That's why I suggested {lengchu'}, maybe using a different word, but this hits the point. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
QaghHa'moHghachmey chupta'bogh Hoch'e' qatlho'! (SuStel qathlo'qu' je!) bIH vIqonta' 'ej tugh lutmey vImughqa' -- ghIq 'opleS vIyIr 'e' vItul. DaH <<paq'batlh>> vIlaDqa' -- /yes/ 'oH vIlaDtaH jay' ... QImSIr
participants (5)
-
Brian Cote -
De'vID -
Lieven -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel