Re: [tlhIngan Hol] The Doctor Who discussion
Sustel: *Doctor Who* mughta’ghachlIj vIlaD ’e’ vItIv J DaH Doctor Who ’ay’ vImugh ’e’ vInIDnIS je! < Hegh Hoch ’e’ Sov Hoch. ’ach Hoch jaj qaSbe’. jajvam qaSbe’. le’ ’op jaj. le’qu’ ’op jaj. ’op jaj Hegh pagh nuv. rut, wa’logh qaStaHvIS poH nI’qu’, wa’ jaj qaStaHvIS wa’ ’uy’ jajmey, DoqtaHvIS bIQtIq bIQ ’ej rItlu’DI’ ghoS Qel, taH Hoch. > jIQaghpu'chugh jIHvaD yIja'. qatlho' ! ~mughwI' 2017-02-12 18:20 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
jum. choQoylaHchugh jIratlhlaH 'e' vIQub. mIw vISovbe'. jIDogh. bIDogh, Qel qan. bIvemDI' SoS vav je Daghaj 'ej choqawbe'. toH, loQ choqaw. nachlIj Dabbogh lut jIH. lu'. tagha' lut 'oH Hoch'e'. lut yIQaQmoH. nIvmo', nIvbejmo': 'IDnar 'aplo' nIHta' maw'bogh loD qan 'ej Haw'ta'. vInIHta' 'e' qaja'? toH, vIngIpta'; reH vIcheghmoH 'e' vIHech. 'o 'aplo'vetlh, *Amy,* 'aplo'vetlh Daghom bInajtaHvIS. not Dumej. quq ngoDmeyvam: tIn 'ej mach, chu'chu' 'ej qanqu'; 'ej SuDchu'ghachDaj SuD law' Hoch SuD puS. 'ej Doch DIta'bogh, qar'a'? Doch lujallu'bogh. Doch DIta'be'bogh. bInajtaHvIS ratlh Dochmeyvam. Qel *Amy Pond* je... qaSbe'bogh jajmey je.
SoQchoH Qarghmey. 'ach SoQlaHbe'chu' latlh Dop vIghoSpa'. DaH naDev jInov. ratlhbogh qaSHa'ghach vIbuSQo'. qaSqa'ghach vImuS. yIyInchu'. *Rory* yImuSHa'. *Bye-bye, Pond.*
On 2/12/2017 10:27 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Thanks for your help and explanations Sustel !
I think I get it now :)
~mughwI'
PS: "TARDIS-blue", I love your choice of example ;) Whovian jIH !
2017-02-11 18:16 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 2/11/2017 8:34 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Indeed the lack of tense can be a bit confusing sometimes and it's taking me a bit of time getting used to.
I'm still working to figure out also how it works with the verb suffixes.
For example, in the 4 possible sentences below, do I get the exact nuances right?
jIvutpu’ ’e’ vIparHa’ - I like that I cooked (at some point in the past) - I like that I have cooked (just now) - I like finishing to cook (maybe implying that this is when I can finally eat ;)
"At some point in the past" implies past tense, which we know Klingon doesn't have. Instead, the *-pu'* tells us that "I cook" is a completed action. In English we can't separate tense and aspect, so the distinction is difficult for English-speakers to grasp.
*jIvutpu' * *I cooked; I have cooked; I will have cooked *I perform, performed, or will perform an act of cooking, and I now, did, or will complete that act.
The single word in no way tells you whether the action is past, present, or future. It means all of them and none of them at the same time, the same way that *blue* means sky-blue and navy-blue and TARDIS-blue all at the same time.
*wa'Hu' jIvutpu' **yesterday I cooked; yesterday I had cooked*
*DaH jIvutpu' **right now I have cooked*
*wa'leS jIvutpu' **tomorrow I will have cooked*
Contexts like these are required to determine *when* the cooking happened.
If you don't use an aspect suffix, you are explicitly talking about an action that is not completed (or continuous) in the moment your are describing.
*jIvut **I cook; **It's true that I cook things*
This also does not specify *when* an action happened, which requires context:
*wa'Hu' jIvut **I cooked yesterday; it's true that I engaged in cooking yesterday*
*DaH jIvut **I cook now; at other times I may not have cooked, but it's true that I cook now*
*wa'leS jIvut **I will cook tomorrow; tomorrow I'll do some cooking*
You can make a similar comparison with the continuous suffixes.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing listtlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.orghttp://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
majQa'! SoQvetlh vIqawbe'pu' vaj vIQulnIS. toH, jatlhpu' /bIQtIq bom/ (heh heh). DaH jImughqa' jIH'e'. /Qel 'Iv/ ngo' DaSov'a'? wa' jaj jIchegh. jIcheghbej. jIcheghpa' yIpayQo'; yISaQQo'; yIbIt'eghmoHQo'. yIvoqchu' neH bIruchtaHvIS 'ej jIvoqHa'be' je jIHvaD 'e' yItob. On 2/13/2017 4:21 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Sustel: /Doctor Who/ mughta’ghachlIj vIlaD ’e’ vItIv J
DaH Doctor Who ’ay’ vImugh ’e’ vInIDnIS je!
< Hegh Hoch ’e’ Sov Hoch. ’ach Hoch jaj qaSbe’. jajvam qaSbe’. le’ ’op jaj. le’qu’ ’op jaj. ’op jaj Hegh pagh nuv. rut, wa’logh qaStaHvIS poH nI’qu’, wa’ jaj qaStaHvIS wa’ ’uy’ jajmey, DoqtaHvIS bIQtIq bIQ ’ej rItlu’DI’ ghoS Qel, taH Hoch. >
jIQaghpu'chugh jIHvaD yIja'.
qatlho' !
~mughwI'
2017-02-12 18:20 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>>:
jum. choQoylaHchugh jIratlhlaH 'e' vIQub. mIw vISovbe'. jIDogh. bIDogh, Qel qan. bIvemDI' SoS vav je Daghaj 'ej choqawbe'. toH, loQ choqaw. nachlIj Dabbogh lut jIH. lu'. tagha' lut 'oH Hoch'e'. lut yIQaQmoH. nIvmo', nIvbejmo': 'IDnar 'aplo' nIHta' maw'bogh loD qan 'ej Haw'ta'. vInIHta' 'e' qaja'? toH, vIngIpta'; reH vIcheghmoH 'e' vIHech. 'o 'aplo'vetlh, /Amy,/ 'aplo'vetlh Daghom bInajtaHvIS. not Dumej. quq ngoDmeyvam: tIn 'ej mach, chu'chu' 'ej qanqu'; 'ej SuDchu'ghachDaj SuD law' Hoch SuD puS. 'ej Doch DIta'bogh, qar'a'? Doch lujallu'bogh. Doch DIta'be'bogh. bInajtaHvIS ratlh Dochmeyvam. Qel /Amy Pond/ je... qaSbe'bogh jajmey je.
SoQchoH Qarghmey. 'ach SoQlaHbe'chu' latlh Dop vIghoSpa'. DaH naDev jInov. ratlhbogh qaSHa'ghach vIbuSQo'. qaSqa'ghach vImuS. yIyInchu'. /Rory/ yImuSHa'. /Bye-bye, Pond./
On 2/12/2017 10:27 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Thanks for your help and explanations Sustel !
I think I get it now :)
~mughwI'
PS: "TARDIS-blue", I love your choice of example ;) Whovian jIH!
2017-02-11 18:16 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>>:
On 2/11/2017 8:34 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Indeed the lack of tense can be a bit confusing sometimes and it's taking me a bit of time getting used to.
I'm still working to figure out also how it works with the verb suffixes.
For example, in the 4 possible sentences below, do I get the exact nuances right?
jIvutpu’ ’e’ vIparHa’ - I like that I cooked (at some point in the past) - I like that I have cooked (just now) - I like finishing to cook (maybe implying that this is when I can finally eat ;)
"At some point in the past" implies past tense, which we know Klingon doesn't have. Instead, the *-pu'* tells us that "I cook" is a completed action. In English we can't separate tense and aspect, so the distinction is difficult for English-speakers to grasp.
*jIvutpu' */I cooked; I have cooked; I will have cooked /I perform, performed, or will perform an act of cooking, and I now, did, or will complete that act.
The single word in no way tells you whether the action is past, present, or future. It means all of them and none of them at the same time, the same way that /blue/ means sky-blue and navy-blue and TARDIS-blue all at the same time.
*wa'Hu' jIvutpu' */yesterday I cooked; yesterday I had cooked/
*DaH jIvutpu' */right now I have cooked/
*wa'leS jIvutpu' */tomorrow I will have cooked/
Contexts like these are required to determine /when/ the cooking happened.
If you don't use an aspect suffix, you are explicitly talking about an action that is not completed (or continuous) in the moment your are describing.
*jIvut */I cook; //It's true that I cook things/
This also does not specify /when/ an action happened, which requires context:
*wa'Hu' jIvut */I cooked yesterday; it's true that I engaged in cooking yesterday/
*DaH jIvut */I cook now; at other times I may not have cooked, but it's true that I cook now/
*wa'leS jIvut */I will cook tomorrow; tomorrow I'll do some cooking/
You can make a similar comparison with the continuous suffixes.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
HIja’ ! SoQvetlh jatlhpu’ Qel wa’DIch J DaH mu’meyvam noy vImugh – bIH Daqaw’a’ ? < Doy’law’ ghaH ’e’ DaQubbe’’a’ ? > 2017-02-13 22:51 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
majQa'! SoQvetlh vIqawbe'pu' vaj vIQulnIS. toH, jatlhpu' *bIQtIq bom* (heh heh).
DaH jImughqa' jIH'e'. *Qel 'Iv* ngo' DaSov'a'?
wa' jaj jIchegh. jIcheghbej. jIcheghpa' yIpayQo'; yISaQQo'; yIbIt'eghmoHQo'. yIvoqchu' neH bIruchtaHvIS 'ej jIvoqHa'be' je jIHvaD 'e' yItob.
On 2/13/2017 4:21 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Sustel: *Doctor Who* mughta’ghachlIj vIlaD ’e’ vItIv J
DaH Doctor Who ’ay’ vImugh ’e’ vInIDnIS je!
< Hegh Hoch ’e’ Sov Hoch. ’ach Hoch jaj qaSbe’. jajvam qaSbe’. le’ ’op jaj. le’qu’ ’op jaj. ’op jaj Hegh pagh nuv. rut, wa’logh qaStaHvIS poH nI’qu’, wa’ jaj qaStaHvIS wa’ ’uy’ jajmey, DoqtaHvIS bIQtIq bIQ ’ej rItlu’DI’ ghoS Qel, taH Hoch. >
jIQaghpu'chugh jIHvaD yIja'.
qatlho' !
~mughwI'
2017-02-12 18:20 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
jum. choQoylaHchugh jIratlhlaH 'e' vIQub. mIw vISovbe'. jIDogh. bIDogh, Qel qan. bIvemDI' SoS vav je Daghaj 'ej choqawbe'. toH, loQ choqaw. nachlIj Dabbogh lut jIH. lu'. tagha' lut 'oH Hoch'e'. lut yIQaQmoH. nIvmo', nIvbejmo': 'IDnar 'aplo' nIHta' maw'bogh loD qan 'ej Haw'ta'. vInIHta' 'e' qaja'? toH, vIngIpta'; reH vIcheghmoH 'e' vIHech. 'o 'aplo'vetlh, *Amy,* 'aplo'vetlh Daghom bInajtaHvIS. not Dumej. quq ngoDmeyvam: tIn 'ej mach, chu'chu' 'ej qanqu'; 'ej SuDchu'ghachDaj SuD law' Hoch SuD puS. 'ej Doch DIta'bogh, qar'a'? Doch lujallu'bogh. Doch DIta'be'bogh. bInajtaHvIS ratlh Dochmeyvam. Qel *Amy Pond* je... qaSbe'bogh jajmey je.
SoQchoH Qarghmey. 'ach SoQlaHbe'chu' latlh Dop vIghoSpa'. DaH naDev jInov. ratlhbogh qaSHa'ghach vIbuSQo'. qaSqa'ghach vImuS. yIyInchu'. *Rory* yImuSHa'. *Bye-bye, Pond.*
On 2/12/2017 10:27 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Thanks for your help and explanations Sustel !
I think I get it now :)
~mughwI'
PS: "TARDIS-blue", I love your choice of example ;) Whovian jIH !
2017-02-11 18:16 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 2/11/2017 8:34 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Indeed the lack of tense can be a bit confusing sometimes and it's taking me a bit of time getting used to.
I'm still working to figure out also how it works with the verb suffixes.
For example, in the 4 possible sentences below, do I get the exact nuances right?
jIvutpu’ ’e’ vIparHa’ - I like that I cooked (at some point in the past) - I like that I have cooked (just now) - I like finishing to cook (maybe implying that this is when I can finally eat ;)
"At some point in the past" implies past tense, which we know Klingon doesn't have. Instead, the *-pu'* tells us that "I cook" is a completed action. In English we can't separate tense and aspect, so the distinction is difficult for English-speakers to grasp.
*jIvutpu' * *I cooked; I have cooked; I will have cooked *I perform, performed, or will perform an act of cooking, and I now, did, or will complete that act.
The single word in no way tells you whether the action is past, present, or future. It means all of them and none of them at the same time, the same way that *blue* means sky-blue and navy-blue and TARDIS-blue all at the same time.
*wa'Hu' jIvutpu' **yesterday I cooked; yesterday I had cooked*
*DaH jIvutpu' **right now I have cooked*
*wa'leS jIvutpu' **tomorrow I will have cooked*
Contexts like these are required to determine *when* the cooking happened.
If you don't use an aspect suffix, you are explicitly talking about an action that is not completed (or continuous) in the moment your are describing.
*jIvut **I cook; **It's true that I cook things*
This also does not specify *when* an action happened, which requires context:
*wa'Hu' jIvut **I cooked yesterday; it's true that I engaged in cooking yesterday*
*DaH jIvut **I cook now; at other times I may not have cooked, but it's true that I cook now*
*wa'leS jIvut **I will cook tomorrow; tomorrow I'll do some cooking*
You can make a similar comparison with the continuous suffixes.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/14/2017 11:01 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
HIja’ ! SoQvetlh jatlhpu’ Qel wa’DIch J
DaH mu’meyvam noy vImugh – bIH Daqaw’a’ ?
< Doy’law’ ghaH ’e’ DaQubbe’’a’ ? >
jav mu' Dalo'pu'be'. :) This sentence is difficult to translate satisfactorily because it has to hit exactly the right note. At first glance, you could just say *Doy'law'*/she seems to be tired./ But it has to be a question, because the Doctor's goal is not to evaluate Harriet's fatigue, but to get Alex to doubt her stamina. It's essential that Alex think that HE'S the one who has doubts. The English also phrases it as /don't you think?/ instead of /do you think?/ because the latter would make Alex recognize that the Doctor is leading him to a conclusion. Therefore, *Doy' 'e' DaQub'a'* /do you think she's tired?/ isn't quite right either. Ultimately I'd go with the single word the Doctor originally claimed: *Doy''a'*/is she tired?/ It loses a little in the casual gossipy tone of the original, which I don't think Klingon ever does very well, but makes up for it in being a single word which, when spoken subtly enough, would bring down the prime minister's entire government. DaH, latlh vImugh. Daghovba'. loQ tlhIngan Hol poD vIlo'pu': DaH ghellu', /Pandorica /ghaj 'Iv? jIjang, jIH. ghIq ghellu', jIHvo' tlhaprup 'Iv? HInuD jay'! nab ghajbe'; ngaq ghajbe'; nuH lI' ghajbe'; toH, latlh vIghajbe': lujvIpghach meq. vaj Dujraj DoghDaq Suba'taHchugh 'ej nuHraj Dogh SubaHruptaHchugh, 'ej ramvam /Pandorica/ botlhap 'e' bonabchugh, lIbottaHbogh ghot yIqaw neH. reH SalujmoHpu'; Hoch maQmIgh jaj yIqaw. ghIq, *ghIq*, tIval'eghmoH. bInIDpa' nID latlh 'e' yIchaw'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I feel that «Doy'law' qar'a'?» would work quite well on this instance. The Doctor doesn't straight-out say that she is tired; he merely implies it and asks for confirmation, thereby planting the seeds of doubt. 14 feb. 2017 kl. 17:28 skrev SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name<mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>>: This sentence is difficult to translate satisfactorily because it has to hit exactly the right note. At first glance, you could just say Doy'law' she seems to be tired. But it has to be a question, because the Doctor's goal is not to evaluate Harriet's fatigue, but to get Alex to doubt her stamina. It's essential that Alex think that HE'S the one who has doubts.
On 2/14/2017 11:01 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
HIja’ ! SoQvetlh jatlhpu’ Qel wa’DIch J
DaH mu’meyvam noy vImugh – bIH Daqaw’a’ ?
< Doy’law’ ghaH ’e’ DaQubbe’’a’ ? >
wa' latlh vI'omlaHbe': vay' ngo', vay' chu', vay' ngIplu'pu'bogh, vay' SuD This one is disappointing because *ngIp* not being a verb of quality breaks the symmetry of the whole thing. I wanted to say *ngo'wI', chu'wI', ???wI', SuDwI',* but there's really no good way to do that. Maybe someone can think of a good word to put into the ??? to make it close to the original. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Dun Pandorica SoQ, majQa’! <ngIp> qa’meH mu’ghomDaq taS vInej, ’ach taS vISamlaHbe’ :( ’ach tugh latlh SoQ vImugh ’e’ vInID! 2017-02-14 17:35 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 2/14/2017 11:01 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
HIja’ ! SoQvetlh jatlhpu’ Qel wa’DIch J
DaH mu’meyvam noy vImugh – bIH Daqaw’a’ ?
< Doy’law’ ghaH ’e’ DaQubbe’’a’ ? >
wa' latlh vI'omlaHbe':
vay' ngo', vay' chu', vay' ngIplu'pu'bogh, vay' SuD
This one is disappointing because *ngIp* not being a verb of quality breaks the symmetry of the whole thing. I wanted to say *ngo'wI', chu'wI', ???wI', SuDwI',* but there's really no good way to do that. Maybe someone can think of a good word to put into the ??? to make it close to the original.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/15/2017 4:34 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
Dun Pandorica SoQ, majQa’!
<ngIp> qa’meH mu’ghomDaq taS vInej, ’ach taS vISamlaHbe’ :(
’ach tugh latlh SoQ vImugh ’e’ vInID!
yIyep'eghmoH! betgham 'oH taS'e'. SoQvam Daghov'a'? qo' SarDaq meQtaH chal, QongtaH bIQ'a', najtaH bIQtIq, nuv chenmoH tlhIch, 'ej veng chenmoH bom. voghDaq Qoblu', voghDaq QIHlu', 'ej latlh voghDaq bIrchoH Dargh. Ha', /Ace/, mavumnIS. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
Aurélie Demonchaux -
Felix Malmenbeck -
SuStel