tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 14 09:31:41 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tlhab jaj

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:25:17 -0700
>From: Robert Darke <[email protected]>

On a list like this, it's often important to know whom you're quoting.  Try
to include some kind of reference when you quote.

>> > QaQ 'oH. vIleghpu'.
>> > jabbI'IdghomDaq lut wanI'mey DIja'chuqchugh 'ej vaj lut De' wI'angchugh,
>> > (lut legh 'e' Hech nuvpu''e')vaD lut bel QIH 'oH
>> 
>>   {lut legh 'e' Hech nuvpu''e'} =  is a relative clause used as a noun, and
>> that noun wants a -vaD suffix: "for people who intend to see the story": where
>> should the -vaD go?


>I'd have cast it using "if" rather than "for" in the context of "if people
>intend to see the story". I don't know but I think it conveys the meaning
>better than {-vaD}  --  {-vaD} seems to me to indicate a recipient of
>something or some action and saying that you are not doing something "for
>them" using the {-vaD} form of "for" seems strange to me as the intent
>doesn't come across.

>Hmmm. Maybe I'm talking rubbish.

>Lets see ...

>{lut lulegh luneHchugh vay' lut vIQIHqangbe'}

>Which I mean to be read as

>"If they want to see the story (THEN) I'm not willing to damage the story".

>hmmm... I see your point though ... where should I have put the "-chugh" ?

>It could be read

>"If they want to then they will see the story. I am not willing to damage
>the story"

>which is a subtly different meaning.

I don't think so.  I think your translation is just right as it is.  Think
of it this way.  What is the condition?  What has to be fulfilled for if
clause to come true?  Not seeing, but wanting.  It's not "If they see..."
it's "if they want...."  So it has to be "lut lulegh luneHchugh..."

Aha, but your problem is that it could be viewed as "lut lulegh, luneHchugh
vay'.  lut vIQIHqangbe'," as separate sentences, with "lut lulegh" as the
*result* of the -chugh clause, not as its sentence-as-object.  Yep, that's
ambiguous all right.  Context is fairly clear here, though, and I'd think
the translation you want would be the more common reading.  As an aid to
such things, many people are careful to put "vaj" before then-clauses (as
in bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh), and also tend to put "if" before "then" in
general.  If you said "lut lulegh luneHchugh vay', vaj lut vIQIHqanbe'," it
would be even more compelling to read it the way you intended it (though
still possible not to).  You'd have been more likely to say something like
"lut luneHchugh vay', vaj lulegh.  lut vIQIHqangbe'" if you wanted the
other meaning.

"vaj" is your friend.  So is context.

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMhH/XMppGeTJXWZ9AQGIzwL+JuIVVqTCE5+0X2/6IfxLLDB/Z9nHNTUg
Jz5NufXiSzLVpGn9WyVQkLYvciB/2LBLaaX8zSsxO62DUQEJNsGVtIwGo1+LzqbG
pTxcQU9+jp7Qz//k9X1vKSD5j3rndpka
=USJ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level