tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 22 18:37:45 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Learning tlhingan Hol and Dr. Suess
- From: [email protected] (Adrian K)
- Subject: Re: Learning tlhingan Hol and Dr. Suess
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:41:00 -0500
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:19:46 -0700
>>From: [email protected] (Adrian K)
>
>>>I know you qaSov
>>Good so far
>
>Yeah.
>
>>>You were too short (I found nothing in the TKD that was similar to short)
>>"bitIqHa'pu'" -> You were "unlong" (I couldn't remeber what the suffix
>>meaning "too" is, can someone help me?)
>
>We don't have a good word for "short," unfortunately. "tIqHa'" works okay
>for unlong, and nI'Ha' for unlong-of-time... But people aren't short in
>length, necessarily. I kind of like jenHa' for "short" of a person
>(untall), but then again, it's only an English idiom that makes "long" not
>a synonym for "tall."
>
>You can use "bItIqHa'qu'"/you are/were very unlong. There's no "-pu'"
>implied that I can see, and -qu'/exceedingly seems to work well for "too"
>in most circumstances.
>
>>
>>>You had bad skin DIr bIqab
>>"qabpu' DIrlIj" -> Your skin was bad
>
>Yes, though the -pu' is not implied. The original suggestion isn't
>grammatical... "skin. You're bad." I prefer your "qab DIrlIj" to the more
>literal-from-English "DIr qab Daghaj."
>
>>>You couldn't speak to them very well majQa' tIjatlhQo'
>>"Dajatlhta' 'ej QaQbe'pu' SoQlIj" -> You spoke to them and your speech was
>>not good
>
>I'd prefer "chaHvaD bIjatlh 'ej QaQbe' SoQlIj," to use your
>phraseology... which I probably would not have thought of, by the way.
>It's qute good and creative and makes sense; be proud of it! I might have
>done something like "chaHvaD bIjatlhchu'be'" or "chaHvaD bIjatlhHa'" or
>"chaHvaD bIjatlhtaHvIS bIpo'be'"....
Thanks . . . I guess my translation didn't really convey the "to them."
>The original suggestion was more like "well done. don't say them."
>
>>
>>>They lied when they came out of your mouth nuj nIHurvo'DI' nep'e'
>>"nujlIjvo' lujaHta'DI' nep" -> When/(As soon as) they left your mouth,
they lied
>
>drop the lu- prefix. They/no-object is no prefix. Also don't need the
>- -ta'. Otherwise, I rather like your translation.
It's "they left YOUR MOUTH," so I assumed the prfeix is they-it, or lu-. I
stuck the -ta' on this one and the -pu' on the others because the whole poem
is in past tense. Is this unnecessary?
-Adrian K (aka HoS'a'wi')
\|||||/
( o o )
|--------oOOo--( )--oOOo----------| "tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq
| http://www.jwp.bc.ca/peregrine | law' bIQ qaq puS."
|[email protected]________| -Marc Okrand