tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 24 10:30:32 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Easter translation



>Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:44:45 -0400
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>

>>Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 16:52:30 -0400
>>Originator: [email protected]
>>From: [email protected]

>>> Major quibble:  {allelu'ya} is definitely not pronounced the way
>>> "Alleluia" is.

>>For one thing, it starts with a vowel, which is not kosher in either Klingon
>>or Hebrew.  And that glottal stop seems gratuitous.  ~mark, what's the exact
>>Hebrew form?

>The Hebrew is "hal'luyah", with an h at the beginning.  Argh, I don't have
>a text with me to verify the precise pointing, but I think I can work it
>out grammatically.

>"Hal'luyah" is a compound of "Hal'lu" + "yah".  The first word is a plural
>command: "Praise!"  I believe it's spelled h, then "a" (qamatz), then l
>(single l), then a "moving" shwa (i.e. sounded, not silent), then another l
>and u.  "Yah" is a name of God, a contraction of the tetragrammaton.  It's
>spelled "y" and "a" (qamatz), followed by a *consonantal* h.  The final h
>in this word (unlike most in Hebrew) is *pronounced* (and written with a
>dot in it).  

>>> That {ll} is pretty weird.

>>No, it's correct.

>I'm pretty sure the Hebrew "l" is not doubled (aside from the fact that
>there's a second after the shwa).

A correction: I looked this up.  The "a" in "hal'lu" is a patach, not a
qamatz, though I know what I was thinking when I said it.  There definitely
is no doubling of the first l, but I couldn't tell you why.  Grammatically,
there should be.  I suspect it may be because the verb root has two
identical letters (two l's) and therefore doesn't its second radical
doubled in this form.

>>> How is it pronounced in Latin - {QIySto}?  Or, better, in Greek?

>>{QIStUS} and {QIStoS}, respectively, and it means `anointed one'.

>So why not {maSIyaH}?

I hope people didn't take me too seriously... I was just pointing out that
the logic of using one transliterated common noun over another is... well,
not all that logical.

>>--'Iwvan

>~mark

~mark


Back to archive top level