tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 05 20:05:08 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 129
According to Christopher Dicely:
>
> On Sat, 4 Mar 1995 charghwI' wrote:
> > ------------------------------
...
> > wa' qum mojchoH qum law'.
>
> Interesting. I hate to question you on grammar (for the same reason I
> would hate to question Laura D'Andrea Tyson on economics) but shouldn't
> that be:
>
> wa' qum lumoj law'bogh qum(mey).
Well, you got me on the {lu-}. I forget this prefix a high
percentage of the time I should use it. Unfortunately, I need
it rarely enough that I am not sufficiently prompted to begin
remembering it. As for the rest, it works, though I don't see
it as especially better. Does, "The governments which are many
become one government," really improve "The many governments
become one government."?
> "The government which is many becomes one goverment" or
> "The governments which are many become one government"
>
> Hm..., maybe not. Looking back at TKD, law' is mighty irregular. For
> example, the main use in TKD is in comparatives where it goes in what
> would seem to be the wrong place:
>
> A Q law' B Q puS -- but if we take law' (v) to be many and puS (v) to be few,
> this should be:
>
> law' A Q 'ej pus B Q
Okrand notes that this is a very irregular form and is strictly
followed as the only comparative, so you just have to take it
as it is rather than figure what it "should" be. It IS what it
should be. Think of {HoD tIn law' be' tIn puS} as "Many big
men; few big women." This equates to "men are bigger than
women." (Let's not argue about the truth of the statement and
just recognize it as a grammatical example).
> since the "Q of A" and "Q of B" are the subjects of their clauses. Is
> there any justification for extending this grammatical inversion outside
> of comparatives?
No.
> Another thing: isn't the suffix -choH redundant with the verb moj?
So long as {moj} and {mojchoH} offer different meanings, it
seems like {-choH} should be a valid addition to the verb. In
this case, my intent was primarily one of emphasis. This is not
just a cyclic thing where the governments flow back and forth
between being many or being one. These many governments had
never been one before and there was a big change and they
became one and stayed that way. The change is the issue. Why
bother puting it on a coin if it weren't a big deal, right?
> Or
> wouldn't it imply something like "starting to become"?
Or changed to become.
> For example, if I
> said:
> jItaQchoH "I am becoming weird, I am starting to be weird"
> ghojwI' tlhIngan Hol jImoj "I am becoming a student of the Klingon language"
> ghojwI' tlhIngan Hol jImojchoH "I am starting to become (just becoming?) a
> student of the Klingon language"
>
Your word order on the noun-noun construction is off here.
You've said, "I become a student's Klingon's language," or "I
become a language of the Klingon of the student," or some
mixture of the two forms. You say that you are becoming the
language possessed by a Klingon who is owned by the student.
You can avoid this whole mess to say:
tlhIngan Hol vIghojchoH. "I begin to study Klingon language."
This is one of those differences between the English tendency
to say, "I am a student" vs. the Klingon preference for "I
study." Klingon favors action over labels. English favors,
"Give my your answer," while Klingon favors, "Answer me."
>
> I think, also, that your translation loses some of the connotation of
> the original -- it implies, IMO, more than just a merging of governments
> but of people as well,
I must confess, this interpretation conjures images of
cannibalism. How else can many people become one person?
> if specificity as to exact topic is needed, I think:
>
> wa' qo' moj law'bogh qo'
or {wa' qo' moj qo'mey law'.}
or how about {wa' wo' mojchoH wo'mey law'.}?
> But maybe I'm reading the implication of "qo'" wrongly -- I'm not using
> it in the sense of "world" but "realm" which I think has more the flavor
> of a nation or polity than "qum" does. But that type of realm may be
> outside the meaning of "qo'" and TKD doesn't make that clear...
>
> Perhaps:
>
> wa' ghom rewbe'pu' lumoj law'bogh ghommey rewbe'pu'
Unfortunately, this can mean, "The groups' citizens, which are
many, become the citizens of one group." Hmmm. And Now For
Something Completely Different:
vIHbe'taHvIS qummey law'vo' wa' wo'Daq ghoSta' rewbe'pu'.
It's not efficient, but I kinda like the way it twists my brain.
> But I don't think that, as a motto, the specificity is needed, I think:
>
> wa lumoj law'wI'
>
> is a perfectly fine motto.
This kind of vague nominalization bothers me.
> > Don't EVER translate something you don't understand.
>
> 'e' yIlob
>
>
> >
> > charghwI'
> > --
>
> ghojwI'
>
>
> Oh, and how do you get OUT OF digest mode?
Fast for about a week...
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |