tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 04 05:09:20 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Phrases (and Comparative construction)
- From: Irene Gates <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Phrases (and Comparative construction)
- Date: 04 Feb 97 08:07:23 EST
I sent this yesterday, but the listserver never echoed it back. If it did in
fact reach the List and you've all seen it already, my apologies.
>> I hold it true, whate'er befall;
>> I feel it, when I sorrow most;
>> 'Tis better to have loved and lost
>> Than never to have loved at all.
>> Here's a quick go (i.e. neither metre nor rhyme is perfect) at a translation,
[...]
>> reH jI'IQqu'taHvIS, vIbuS;
>> qaS nuq 'e' jISaHbe', teHlaw';
>> parmaq vIchIlchugh, ghu' QaQ law',
>> not vImuSHa'chugh, ghu' QaQ puS.
jatlh ~mark:
> Wow, you really have a knack for this.
ghojmoHwI' DanaDnIS. reH bom wImughDI' maH cha', chavDaj QaQ law' chavwIj QaQ
puS.
> You have the question-as-object construction which we're not
> so sure about, but that's not bad. Then again, maybe Hoch or
> vay' instead of nuq would be better.
That's why I said it was 'a quick go'. I just used the first construction I
thought of that scanned.
> It should be vISaHbe', though, certainly.
HIvqa' veqlargh! moHaqmey jay'!
qon 'Iwvan:
> reH jI'IQqu'taHvIS, vIbuS,
> 'ej qaSlaH Hoch Doch, not vIHon;
> chaq nargh parmaq; chaq not vIjon;
> ghu'vetlh qaq law' ghu'vam qaq puS.
majQa'! I considered using your {paghmo' tIn mIs}-type construction, but
abandoned the idea because I thought {ghu'vetlh} and {ghu'vam} would have to be
stressed on {ghu'-}. But in this case one can very easily justify stressing the
demonstrative suffixes.
T'Lark