1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Klingon
  4. >
  5. "Workers of all planets, be w…

"Workers of all planets, be willing to cooperate!"

Translation:Hoch yuQmey vumwI'pu', pejIjqang!

January 11, 2019

15 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/LeeGOgletree

pagh mIrrajmey lIchIl.

January 11, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jdmcowan

I'm lost on your meaning. lIchIl means "he misplaces you all" (or perhaps she, it, or they do it). In front of that you have the noun "our chains" (though the plural always comes first so it should be mIrmeyraj). And in front of that you have the word pagh which can act as a conjuntion between sentences (but it's not between sentences), or be indicating that there are 0 of something (but it's followed by something that we own so there can't be 0 of them), or it could be saying, "nothing" or "no one", but it still doesn't connect well to anything else. What were you trying to say?

January 11, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/LeeGOgletree

Thank you. Maybe-obviously, I was trying to say, "You have nothing to lose but your chains." I will try to say it again. After I review some of what I have learned so far.

January 11, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jdmcowan

You seem to be using the reverse prefix (switched subject and object). Also, note that chIl is "lose" as in "misplace". This is more like "lose" as in "get rid of". I would suggest SuqHa'. In English we can say, "but your chains" and your mind recalls the first clause and places it in that context. Klingons like to be a little more direct and specific. You will want to repeat the verb to complete the "but your chains" portion.

January 11, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DavidTrimb3

We have a relatively new verb for this, weS lose (no longer have, presumably permanently).

Consider the adverbial neH only modifying mIrmeyraj for the but your chains part. Remember that neH is an exceptional adverbial in that it follows the noun or verb it modifies.

January 11, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jdmcowan

Thank you. I had forgotten weS. It's much better than SuqHa'.

January 11, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Michael.Lubetsky

Hmm...even reading all the various hints I am still wondering how best to translate "You have nothing to lose but your chains."

Maybe pagh SuweSlaHbogh Sughaj, mIrmey neH boghajmo' ("You have nothing that you can lose, for you have only chains"). I also note from boQwI' that when the object of a verb is pagh, you use the prefix that would apply for no object.

Or perhaps mIrraj neH boweSlaH, pagh Sughajmo' ("You can lose only your chains, for you have nothing"), although this strikes me as far less poetic.

I am also wondering whether, given that we are talking about initiating a change of state, -choH could be usefully be added to weS, so perhaps mIrraj neH boweSchoHlaH, pagh Sughajmo' ("You can come to lose only your chains, for you have nothing").

Hmmm....

--may'Iq

January 15, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DavidTrimb3

Maybe pagh SuweSlaHbogh Sughaj, mIrmey neH boghajmo' ("You have nothing that you can lose, for you have only chains"). I also note from boQwI' that when the object of a verb is pagh, you use the prefix that would apply for no object.

If boQwI' says that, it is in error. This has to be pagh boweSlaHbogh nothing which you can lose.

There is a much simpler way to translate this: mIrmeyraj neH boweSlaH You can lose only your chains. Don't be afraid to deviate from the English phrasing when you translate. Duolingo may not allow you to do it, but it's the way to translate in the real world.

If the idea of having nothing being the reason you can only lose your chains is too essential to drop, you can say mIrmeyraj neH boweSlaH latlh boghajbe'mo' You can lose only your chains because you do not have anything else.

January 15, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jdmcowan

The boQwI' entry is confusing, but I'm confident it intends to say that when actual pagh is the object, then you use the no-object prefixes. But when the word pagh is the object, you should use the third-person-object prefixes.

January 15, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Michael.Lubetsky

qayajbe'. mu'tlheghDaq "pagh" Dalo'chugh, chay' "the word pagh" pIm "actual pagh"? ghantoHmey Danob'a'?

January 16, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jdmcowan

Yes. I realize that's how you understood it. I guarantee that is not how De'vID meant it because that is not grammatically correct. He is trying to indicate what to do if there is no object, not if the object is the word pagh.

As evidence note that he includes the note, "(i.e., there is no object)", and that he does not include the prefixes to use when pagh is the subject.

January 16, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DavidTrimb3

The moral of this story is not to try to be clever when teaching Klingon.

"Actual pagh," indeed.

January 16, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Michael.Lubetsky

Reading this sentence, I realise I have perhaps answered my own question by saying Dalo'chugh instead of bIlo'chugh. :-) This would mean, however, that you disagree with David about which pronouns to use with pagh.

January 16, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jdmcowan

pagh vISop ("I will eat nothing.") has the word pagh as the object and so we use a third-person-object prefix.

jISop ("I will eat.") has actual pagh as the object and so we use a no-object prefix.

January 16, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Michael.Lubetsky

@jdmcowan: This is not how I understood the explanation in boQwI'. I take it to mean that that when pagh is used as the object pronoun of a verb, then the verb is conjugated as having no object. So "I eat nothing" would be translated as pagh jISop.

I take no view as to whether this is "correct" or not. If it is incorrect, however, then it may be good to clarify boQwI'.

January 16, 2019
Learn Klingon in just 5 minutes a day. For free.