| Round | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| << 1 | < 229 | 231 > | 282 >> | |
Zev Brȹk This is a random text which I chose simply because nobody has written its English translation on the Web yet; it's just the first bit of a recent Facebook post which accompanied an attached video, to which the text refers. As I promised, very unpoetic (although still challenging!). Note that not only is Google Translate prohibited, but also any other automatic translators, unless this one really stumps you guys.
Jake Kissinger I'm working on a transcription. Is that first character, the one that keeps reoccurring quite frequently, the character for a glottal stop or something else that's a little cut off?
Brad Wilson It took me a while ti transcribe, because this pIqaD is the Paramount font, which Is a little different than I'm used to. I will not provide the transcription. Yes, the first character is ' the glottal stop. It is a consonant. And ALL 3-letter phonemes in this are CVC.
Brad Wilson The 1st sentence is standard structure. The 2nd is different. And the 3rd is an idiomatic expression.
Zev Brȹk Brad, you're a Klingonist, right? Per our rules you are not eligible to post the answers, but dropping hints could be helpful. (By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by your last comment... among other things, there are only two sentences here.)
Jake Kissinger Here's what I think I see. Some of the letters are such that a slight difference in font or the thickness of the lines produces confusion, but that's probably just because I'm not used to trying to read this script. That one 5th character took me the longest to get; I eventually had the revelation, from looking at the Wikipedia graphic, that it must be ch; it looked a lot different from the one on Omniglot at first, but that's just because of the thickness. I'm also not quite sure O is what I think it is. The first line is what I'm sure of, the second line is what I think it is, & the third is what the IPA should be, though unless Klingon has syllabic consonants, that last word looks pretty difficult to pronounce...
'ay' _a' '_H D__vam'e'. 'ay' wa' lal law' 'ay' _a' lal pugh. 'a_ D_gh vtlh_tlhl.
'ay' cha' 'oH Dochvam'e'. 'ay' wa' lal law' 'ay' cha' lal pugh. 'ach Dogh vtlhchtlhl.
ʔɑjʔ t͡ʃɑʔ ʔox ɖot͡ʃvɑmʔɛʔ. ʔɑjʔ wɑʔ lɑl lɑwʔ ʔɑjʔ t͡ʃɑʔ lɑl pʰuɣ. ʔɑt͡ʃ ɖoɣ vt͡ɬt͡ʃt͡ɬl.
'ay' _a' '_H D__vam'e'. 'ay' wa' lal law' 'ay' _a' lal pugh. 'a_ D_gh vtlh_tlhl.
'ay' cha' 'oH Dochvam'e'. 'ay' wa' lal law' 'ay' cha' lal pugh. 'ach Dogh vtlhchtlhl.
ʔɑjʔ t͡ʃɑʔ ʔox ɖot͡ʃvɑmʔɛʔ. ʔɑjʔ wɑʔ lɑl lɑwʔ ʔɑjʔ t͡ʃɑʔ lɑl pʰuɣ. ʔɑt͡ʃ ɖoɣ vt͡ɬt͡ʃt͡ɬl.
Brad Wilson Impressive, but take another look at your mapping of gh and tlh. And look closer at words 7 & 8.
Jake Kissinger I want to work on this, but I really *shouldn't* until I get done with my Spanish linguistics homework, & it's late, so I may sleep afterwards. I think my attempt at a transcription should be enough for now to help people out, & if it's not then I'll try to fix the letters I got wrong when I get the chance! 
Brad Wilson Klingon's kind of a tough nut for anyone with no knowledge of it. With no relatives, people can't even make educated guesses. :-p
Arief Wibowo Hint: read this comment in the attached picture, as l (lima) and I (capital-India) looks the similar in sans serif fonts.
I came to similar conclusions with Jake Kissinger.
My (confident) opinions over Jake's transcription:
* gh → S (pugh → puS)
* tlh → I (vtlhchtlhl → vIchIl)
* last character is correct, "l"
And hence this version:
'ay' cha' 'oH Dochvam'e'.
'ay' wa' lal law' 'ay' cha' lal puS,
'ach DoS vIchIl.
Now, I notice a difference between the last "l" and the "l"s in middle (e.g., lal, law'), so I relooked into the pIqaD.
I guess (unconfidently) that they're "q":
'ay' cha' 'oH Dochvam'e'.
'ay' wa' qaq qaw' 'ay' cha' qaq puS,
'ach DoS vIchIl.
I came to similar conclusions with Jake Kissinger.
My (confident) opinions over Jake's transcription:
* gh → S (pugh → puS)
* tlh → I (vtlhchtlhl → vIchIl)
* last character is correct, "l"
And hence this version:
'ay' cha' 'oH Dochvam'e'.
'ay' wa' lal law' 'ay' cha' lal puS,
'ach DoS vIchIl.
Now, I notice a difference between the last "l" and the "l"s in middle (e.g., lal, law'), so I relooked into the pIqaD.
I guess (unconfidently) that they're "q":
'ay' cha' 'oH Dochvam'e'.
'ay' wa' qaq qaw' 'ay' cha' qaq puS,
'ach DoS vIchIl.
Zev Brȹk Very close, but there's still one error in the romanisation. In any case, you may as well start translating if you wish, since you'll notice any transcriptional problems when stuff doesn't make sense.
Arief Wibowo 'ay' = part, component, piece, section, subsection
cha' = two
'oH = it
Dochvam = this thing
'e' = (topic/emphasize)
Hmmmm... Thai is significantly easier
cha' = two
'oH = it
Dochvam = this thing
'e' = (topic/emphasize)
Hmmmm... Thai is significantly easier
Christian James Meredith I'd join in (since I'm arrogant and believe based on scant evidence I could do well in this, since the language's stucture looks mildly easier than Java), but then again, I'm meant to be doing homework.
Check the Klingon wikipedia article for grammar (assuming it doesn't spoil the round - I'll assume Zev's source might be different though?). Pretty lego-esque stuff.
Check the Klingon wikipedia article for grammar (assuming it doesn't spoil the round - I'll assume Zev's source might be different though?). Pretty lego-esque stuff.
Zev Brȹk My source is a Facebook post by a certain M. Peterson (who I hope won't mind my educational use of it), so there's really no way that any Googling or Wikipedia or whatnot could spoil it. If you ask me, Klingon grammar is fairly straightforward and not very alien at all, once you swallow the rules, but I suppose you have yet to do that. Carry on!
Christian James Meredith In grammatically stripped down English until I get the context:
Bit two (it (is?)) this thing
Bit one better be many [than] bit two be less better
But I lose target
Bit two (it (is?)) this thing
Bit one better be many [than] bit two be less better
But I lose target
Christian James Meredith (And I can't readily tell the error, then again I'm about to fall asleep - been using this (left hand side) http://trendingevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/klingon-alphabet-star-trek.jpg )
Zev Brȹk Christian, all your definitions are correct, so it seems you accidentally overcame the confusion earlier between «q» and «Q». So all you need to do is clean up your version 3 comments ago to make it intelligible English. That means using correct punctuation to reflect the original Klingon, massaging the grammar into idiomatic English, and finding better translations for "bit" and "target".
Arief Wibowo I saw that (the right hand side) in Wikipedia, it's Klinzhai alphabet...
Sorry guys, I had increased workload and therefore cannot participate for the time being (again..)
Sorry guys, I had increased workload and therefore cannot participate for the time being (again..)
Jake Kissinger Here's my guess, first a literal gloss followed by what I think it would translate as.
Component one it thing-this-topic. Component one is good to destroy component to show destruction to be several. Nevertheless, the objective I-lose.
This thing is one component. The component is good for destroying one component to demonstrate plentiful destruction. Nevertheless, I am losing sight of the objective.
Here's the list of my definitions:
'ay'=component, section
wa'=one
'oH=it
Doch-=thing
-vam-=this
-'e'=topic
QaQ=to be good
Qaw'=to destroy
cha'=to show
puS=to be few, to be several, to sight
'ach=but, nevertheless, even so, however
DoS=objective
vI-=I
-chIl=lose
Component one it thing-this-topic. Component one is good to destroy component to show destruction to be several. Nevertheless, the objective I-lose.
This thing is one component. The component is good for destroying one component to demonstrate plentiful destruction. Nevertheless, I am losing sight of the objective.
Here's the list of my definitions:
'ay'=component, section
wa'=one
'oH=it
Doch-=thing
-vam-=this
-'e'=topic
QaQ=to be good
Qaw'=to destroy
cha'=to show
puS=to be few, to be several, to sight
'ach=but, nevertheless, even so, however
DoS=objective
vI-=I
-chIl=lose
Jake Kissinger If I'm correct, this is the Romanization and phoneticization, right?
'ay' wa' 'oH Dochvam'e'. 'ay' wa' QaQ Qaw' 'ay' cha' QaQ puS. 'ach DoS vIchIl.
ʔɑjʔ wɑʔ ʔox ɖot͡ʃvɑmʔɛʔ. ʔɑjʔ wɑʔ q͡χɑq͡χ q͡χɑwʔ ʔɑjʔ t͡ʃɑʔ q͡χɑq͡χ pʰuʂ. ʔɑt͡ʃ ɖoʂ vɪt͡ʃɪl.
'ay' wa' 'oH Dochvam'e'. 'ay' wa' QaQ Qaw' 'ay' cha' QaQ puS. 'ach DoS vIchIl.
ʔɑjʔ wɑʔ ʔox ɖot͡ʃvɑmʔɛʔ. ʔɑjʔ wɑʔ q͡χɑq͡χ q͡χɑwʔ ʔɑjʔ t͡ʃɑʔ q͡χɑq͡χ pʰuʂ. ʔɑt͡ʃ ɖoʂ vɪt͡ʃɪl.
Christian James Meredith Bit two (it (is?)) this thing
Bit one better be many [than] bit two be less better
But I lose target
This thing is two parts.
It is better to be one part than to be two not-as-good parts.
But I digress.
TL;DR, NSIH.
Zev, amarite?
Bit one better be many [than] bit two be less better
But I lose target
This thing is two parts.
It is better to be one part than to be two not-as-good parts.
But I digress.
TL;DR, NSIH.
Zev, amarite?
Zev Brȹk Way off. Actually, all of it is way off. The second part is admittedly challenging, but the first and third are actually much more straightforward to an Anglophone — you're overthinking it.
Christian James Meredith It's hard to overthink an OVS phrase-copula-phrase and convert it into an SVO phrase copula phrase, all I'm doing is spinning it around
Marius Vincenzii Dennischter CJM, aren't u get used to OVS since you are learning Jap, and now Korean?
Zev Brȹk Dunno if this helps, but syntax/grammar is wrong within brackets, and punctuation is still wrong overall:
This thing is [two parts].
It is better [to be one part] than [to be two not-as-good parts].
But I [digress].
Where the hell did you get "digress" from? It just made it worse.
This thing is [two parts].
It is better [to be one part] than [to be two not-as-good parts].
But I [digress].
Where the hell did you get "digress" from? It just made it worse.
Christian James Meredith Digress = lose target, since you said idiomatic, I figured "I've lost the goal of the conversation, I've lost my heading, let me return to what we were talking about".
Christian James Meredith Hang about, hang about - whose transcription is better? Arief's last version or Jake's more recent version?
Jake Kissinger If I may ask, where are you getting two? The dictionary I found translated wa' as one.
Zev Brȹk Jake's version is correct. Not sure what his question is — the word "two" or two transcriptions?
Christian James Meredith Zev he's asking me where I got my "two" from - which is from Arief's version.
Christian James Meredith Arief's:
'ay' cha' 'oH Dochvam'e'.
'ay' wa' qaq qaw' 'ay' cha' qaq puS,
'ach DoS vIchIl.
Jake's:
'ay' wa' 'oH Dochvam'e'. 'ay' wa' QaQ Qaw' 'ay' cha' QaQ puS. 'ach DoS vIchIl.
Going off Jakes, we end up with something slightly different
'ay' cha' 'oH Dochvam'e'.
'ay' wa' qaq qaw' 'ay' cha' qaq puS,
'ach DoS vIchIl.
Jake's:
'ay' wa' 'oH Dochvam'e'. 'ay' wa' QaQ Qaw' 'ay' cha' QaQ puS. 'ach DoS vIchIl.
Going off Jakes, we end up with something slightly different
Zev Brȹk Oops, didn't notice the discrepancy. Neither transcription is quite correct, then. Strangely enough, the translation seems to be going fine even with bad readings of letters.
Jake Kissinger Zev earlier said there was a mix-up 'twixt "q" & "Q," so I changed them from Arief's transcription.
Jake Kissinger LOL, the dictionary I was getting stuff from wasn't case sensitive, which for Klingon, is an issue; maybe that's why we were still finding translations.
Christian James Meredith This thing, it is one bit. One bit is better than two. But I lose the target.
Jake, Klingonska Akadamien?
Jake, Klingonska Akadamien?
Zev Brȹk Impressively, Jake's was far closer to gibberish than CJM's was. @CJM: "Part" is better, stick with that. Fix the punctuation, please. Your numbers are still hinky, and there's a couple minor things left, but they can wait.
Christian James Meredith "This thing, it is one bit. One bit is better than two bits. But I lost the link"?
Zev Brȹk Third line is perfect now! (It's not really preterite, but that sounds better in English.) Now fix the other issues I raised in my last post.
Christian James Meredith "This thing is part one. Part one is better than part two. But I lost the link.*"
*(coz link, referring to multiple parts of a post as mentioned earlier)
*(coz link, referring to multiple parts of a post as mentioned earlier)
Christian James Meredith I feel I've got the order of the middle sentence wrong, because I feel like I should be reading "This thing is part one. Part two is better than part one. But I lost the link.".
Wrik Chatterjee This thing is in two pieces. It is better to be in one piece than two. But I lost the link.
Zev Brȹk Wow, Christian! You've really got it and it's all correct, just one thing left — fix the punctuation to match the original Klingon!
Christian James Meredith Zev you mean, still in normal English order, or yoda-speak style?
"Part one, is this thing. Part one, 'tis better, part two, is less better. But, lost the link, I have"
I dunno how Klinglish works, most Star Trek I've watched is the recent movie, not even its sequel yet (*audible gasps*)
"Part one, is this thing. Part one, 'tis better, part two, is less better. But, lost the link, I have"
I dunno how Klinglish works, most Star Trek I've watched is the recent movie, not even its sequel yet (*audible gasps*)
Marius Vincenzii Dennischter Bugger means anal intercourse, but strangely it is more polite than shit.
Is it a British/Oz thingy?
Is it a British/Oz thingy?
Zev Brȹk Wrik's latest version is almost right. There is a single word misread from the original script due to confusion between transcriptions. I shan't say which, but (s)he who stjälcurificates it first shall win.
Jake Kissinger I think there'd be some shit mixed up in the Santorum there, so it sort of involves shit...
Wrik Chatterjee Or even "This video is the first part. The first part is better than the second, but I lost the link."
Zev Brȹk "Thing" does refer to a video, but I'd accept it either way, and I am talking about an error in reading the pIqaD.
Jake Kissinger "This thing is the part to be shown. Part one is better than part two, but I lost the link."
wa' in the first sentence was actually cha'; we must've just mixed that up in all of the different transcriptions.
wa' in the first sentence was actually cha'; we must've just mixed that up in all of the different transcriptions.
Zev Brȹk Jake has solved the mystery of the inaccurate transcription, but his translation is wrong. You have to find a different way to use {cha'}!
Jake Kissinger Oh! That's why I was confused on where the "two" was coming from!
"This thing is part two. Part one is better than part two, but I lost the link."
"This thing is part two. Part one is better than part two, but I lost the link."
Zev Brȹk Wrik is the victor! However, considering that you beat Jake by less than a minute and I think you guys know each other IRL, I would encourage you two to co-host the next round, considering that you essentially stjälcuried simultaneously.
Wrik Chatterjee Real life? Such a thing exists?
Fair enough. Jake already knows what my idea is, and we've co-hosted rounds before
Fair enough. Jake already knows what my idea is, and we've co-hosted rounds before
| Round | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| << 1 | < 229 | 231 > | 282 >> | |