Klingon Imperial Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
05 24, 2012, 05:25: PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Realtime chats are now following a freeform schedule.  If you would like to chat with you fellows please see the It's Talk Time thread for more info or to schedule a chat.
11538 Posts in 1551 Topics by 820 Members
Latest Member: sarakkatz
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  Klingon Imperial Forums
|-+  Klingon Language & Culture
| |-+  Klingon Language
| | |-+  Requests for Translations
| | | |-+  United We Stand?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: United We Stand?  (Read 2094 times)
dargos
Newcomer

Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: 03 07, 2005, 12:50: AM »

posted on 7-14-2002 at 06:08 AM

United We Stand

i came up with "QamjIj maH", but would like verification Smiley
« Last Edit: 04 02, 2005, 01:51: PM by Kesvirit » Logged
qurgh
Novice
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #1 on: 03 07, 2005, 12:53: AM »

posted on 7-22-2002 at 02:21 AM

Hmm.

United we stand is an idiom, which means that we have to think about what you are really refering to. If you want to translate something like that you need to give some context for it. What are you standing united against?

I would translate it general as something like:
majIj - We cooperate

If we look at United Federation of Planets - yuQjIjDIvI' we see that jIj is used to get the united part. DIvI' being Federation and yuQ means planet.

As a side note, in your sentance has an unknown word in it QamjIj isn't a word. I'm guessing you stuck Qam and jIj together to make something, but you can't do that. They are two verbs, they aren't nouns. You sentance translate (although it's not really translateable) as We standcooperative (and you missed the verb prefix ma-). The verb Qam in Klingon just refers to the physical act of standing, as in standing in a line. The standing in "United we stand" refers to a group of people opposing something.
So you could say:
<thing> wIqaD

With <thing> being the object/situation that the group is standing against.
« Last Edit: 04 02, 2005, 01:51: PM by Kesvirit » Logged
dargos
Newcomer

Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #2 on: 03 07, 2005, 12:55: AM »

posted on 7-22-2002 at 04:55 PM

ok, so something like "jagh wIqaD" might be more appropriate? which would translate into we stand against our enemies. could jagh be stretched a bit to imply adversity as opposed to a specific enemy?
« Last Edit: 04 02, 2005, 01:52: PM by Kesvirit » Logged
qurgh
Novice
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #3 on: 03 07, 2005, 12:57: AM »

posted on 7-23-2002 at 03:22 AM

You could use either jaghpu' enemies or jaghmey enemies scattered around the place.

Personally I would say jaghmey wIqaD, because then you are not talking about one enemy or even a group of them, you are talking about a bunches of them, all over the place. That to me generalise the groups of enemies.
« Last Edit: 04 02, 2005, 01:52: PM by Kesvirit » Logged
mrklingon
One Post Wonder

Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #4 on: 03 07, 2005, 01:00: AM »

posted on 7-23-2002 at 02:28 PM

jaghmey

"You could use either jaghpu' enemies or jaghmey enemies scattered around the place."

another nice thing about jahgmey is that it MIGHT be taken as insuluting, -mey also being the plural for non-sentients Smiley

FWIW, anyone online looking for a tlhIngan Hol dictionary can go to http://members.aol.com/jpklingon/uta/GALDict.html, or click on the dictionary link at http://www.mrklingon.org
« Last Edit: 04 02, 2005, 01:53: PM by Kesvirit » Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!