tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 08:37:04 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: story, part 2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:39:16 -0800
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>November 29, 1996 8:57 AM, jatlh Deborah Kay:
>
>> SuQochbe''a'?"
>> lujangmeH, loS vavchaj.
>> SeytaHvIs, jatlh pe'lora, "jIQochbe'."
>> tamtaHvISqu', jatlh velqa, "jIQochbe'."
>
>I don't think you meant the {qu'} to emphasize "while." Probably change this
>to {tamqu'taHvIS}.
Moreover, not even a rover can follow a type-9 suffix. You COULD say
"tamtaHqu'vIS" if you needed to, but I agree it's probably not what was
meant.
>> "HI'Ij," ra' vavchaj, "qeltaHvIS wa' DIS, SuqeqlaH.
>
>Ack! This is turning into a losing battle for me! People love to translate
>"listen to me" as *{HI'Ij}! I honestly don't think {'Ij} is transitive;
>otherwise Okrand (in TKW) would have translated "Listen to the voice of your
>blood" as {'IwlIj ghogh yI'Ij}, but he didn't. He said {'IwlIj ghogh yIQoy.}
It happens that I do believe 'Ij is transitive (or in Krankor's terms, that
its object is the thing listened to), mostly because if it isn't I can't
think of any way to use it in the sense of listening to something. I
suppose it might mean just "pay attetion to what's coming into your ears."
Okrand *said* why he used Qoy instead of 'Ij in TKW. Had he said "listen
to the voice of your blood," the emphasis would be on the attempt. He
tells us that using Qoy makes the statement stronger, that it's not enough
to work at hearing what your blood is saying, that you must actually
*succeed* and absorb its teachings.
>> juHDaq SucheghDI' vaj nentay bolop 'e' vIchaw'.
>> tlhIngan SuvwI'pu' moj tlhIH.
bomoj.
>> tlhIHvaD jIjatlhDI', peQam, peqIm, petam 'ej HIbuS neH.
>
>Excellent way of saying "Stand at attention." The end is a little foggy,
>though. {HIbuS neH} means "merely pay attention to me," which means that the
>paying attention is trivial. I think you mean {jIH neH yIbuS} "focus on me
>alone."
Still has to be HIbuS, though, explicit pronoun or no.
>> tujatlhDI', {joHwI' qaH} ghap tIlo'nIS.{vav} vIlo'Qo'."
>
>{tujatlhDI'} means "when you speak me." {jatlh} as a verb of speaking does
>not seem to use an object. Change this to {jIHvaD SujatlhDI'}.
And do you mean "yIlo'Qo'"? Also, don't mix imperatives with -nIS; I
can't see how those make sense together. "tIlo'nIS" to me can only mean
"be such that you need to use them!"
>> morghrup pe'lora.
>
>This is "Pelora is ready to protest," but she hasn't done it yet. Whereas
>{morghchoH pe'lora} would mean "Pelora begins to protest." Which do you mean?
Sounds like the former, from the context. Actually either would work. A
- -law' suffix would go well: Pelora seemed ready to protest.
>> "ghobe', pe'lora, HIyu'Qo'."
>
>{ghobe'} is not just any "no." It is used in answer to yes/no questions. It
>is the same as saying "negative." Has Pelora asked any questions? No.
>Therefore {ghobe'} is not very appropriate here. You might consider something
>like {bIjatlh 'e' yImev}, or even an invective.
I might even consider "Qo'", but that usage is controversial, and deserves
to be so.
>> ghe''or 'oHqu' juH'e' 'e' boQubchugh, SulughHa'.
Maybe Har instead of Qub?
>> pa'chaj SIchDI', SaQ pe'lora, "mughIj vavma'; vIyajbe'."
>
>This is probably not the correct meaning of {SIch}. I suspect that {SIch}
>refers to putting out one's hand and taking something {vISIchlaH} "I can reach
>it." I'd use {paw} here. {pa'chajDaq pawDI'}
Stylistically, I seem to want "SaQchoH" also.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMqRXJMppGeTJXWZ9AQHmyAL9EyGxbTrVW2hJafd20nDBc7z1YJ2ByCJP
+0Z8/QbjpakMZt4AH+739wH+xwpymBr6qRDMx6jgaOll38acA3uMsHvY9oC4tLbx
dENYevWQ0rLFxbk8Beg5jStKKrXM5CKN
=IIqS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----