tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 13 22:24:24 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
translation project
- From: "Donald E. Vick" <[email protected]>
- Subject: translation project
- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 22:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
ghItlhta'bogh *nIqolo *maHI'avelI qaSDI' joHma' DIS wa'SaD
vaghvatlh wa'maH wej.
>I think "ghItlhbogh" is better: which he *wrote*, not which he had written.
>"qaStaHvIS" works better than "qaSDI'"; he wrote it *while* that year was
>going on, not "as soon as it occured."
I meant that when the year occured, he had written it.
chaq mu' <rIn> vIlo'chugh mu'tlheghvam Dayaj.
loD che'taHbogh Hoch yoSmey Hoch woQmey je che' wa' che'wI' pagh
'oH luche' ghom wIvbogh loDmey.
>Similarly, though the English uses "man"/"men", that's only English
>idiom for "people" (under fire now as sexist). Why export English's
>problems? Stick with nuv or ghot.
Qo'. Remember that this was written in 1513. I don't think it's an
idiom, I think that Nic actually meant "men."
>It's pretty hard to follow; a disambiguating "-'e'" to flag
>the head-nouns could help.
Where would that go again? jIyajbe'.
no' law'vo' yoS Hevlu' pagh chu' yoS.
<law'vo'> of course. reH Suvrup SuvwI'a'.
rut 'oH tlhap no'vo' latlh yoS Hevpu'bogh che'wI'.
>Hmmm... OK. Presuming "latlh" works like "Hoch", which it may. Maybe
>Hevpu'bogh: one who has (already) received a country...
Good idea.
tIghmo' che'wI' lobqanglaw' yoS tlhaplu'bogh, pagh tIghmo'
tlhab chaH luneH.
>I think of "pab" as following rules or laws, not a leader. Probably "lob"
>would be better. I think it's easier to understand if you say "tlhab chaH
>luneH."
Right, otherwise it could be, "They are only free."
yoSmeyvam Suqlu'DI' nuHDaj lo' che'wI', pagh latlh nuH lo',
pagh Do', pagh po'.
>You should say "pagh latlh nuH lo'."
bIlugh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thaddaeus A. Vick, Linguist to the Masses | mailto: [email protected] -or- |
| | [email protected] |
| gules, on a saltire argent voided azure, | |
| thirteen mullets of the second. Yeeha. | http://www.crl.com/~dvick |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------