tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 10:22:53 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: story, part 2

On Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:46:36 -0800 "Mark E. Shoulson" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:39:16 -0800
> >From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
> 
... 
> >> "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 listen to you sing:
bIbom. jI'Ij.

bIbomtaHvIS jI'Ij.

I listen to the baby cry:
chuSDI' ghu jI'Ij.

I listen to your powerful voice:
HoSghajmo' ghoghlIj jI'Ij.

I enjoy listening to opera:
jI'Ijchu'mo' *opera* vItIvqu'!

I listen to the sleeping guard:
QongtaH 'avwI' jI'Ijmo' 'e' vISov.

So, what is the problem?

> I
> suppose it might mean just "pay attetion to what's coming into your ears."

Yep.

> 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.

But there are many potential castings he could have chosen had 
he wanted to use the verb {'Ij}. {bomDI' 'IwlIj yI'Ij!} There, 
'Ij is quite intransitive.
... 
> >> 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."

Or:

jIH HIbuS!

Besides, you are being somewhat redundant, since "think only 
about" is part of the definition for {buS}. Meanwhile, {jIH neH 
yIbuS} has a conflict in the person of the object. When I see 
disagreement between the prefix and the pronoun, I expect there 
to be an implicit indirect object. Something weird, like 
"Concentrate only me to him!" It doesn't really work for me.

> Still has to be HIbuS, though, explicit pronoun or no.

Yep.
 
> >> 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'}.

It warms my heart to hear you say that...
 
> 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!"

Dajqu'.
... 
> >> "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.

Or how about a simple:

Qo', pe'lora. HIyu'Qo'.

> I might even consider "Qo'", but that usage is controversial, and deserves
> to be so.

Why? "I disagree, Pelora. Don't question me.
 
> >> ghe''or 'oHqu' juH'e' 'e' boQubchugh, SulughHa'.
> 
> Maybe Har instead of Qub?

YES!
...
> ~mark

charghwI'

Back to archive top level