tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 04 08:30:49 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
bommey mughbogh T'Lark (Re: weQwIj, Phrases)
- From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
- Subject: bommey mughbogh T'Lark (Re: weQwIj, Phrases)
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 18:31:39 -0800
- Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
- References: <[email protected]>
Irene Gates wrote:
> Qum 'Iwvan:
> > baQa', do I wish you didn't have to make that a *new* candle!
>
> jIH je.
yIyep. naDev mu'ghomvam Qob law' mu'tlhegh naQ Qob puS. `also, too'
'oSmeH {je}, wot tlha'nIS (_tKD_ 5.3).
> Qum Lawrence ~mark je:
> >> 2) the juxtaposition of "jaghpu', juppu'" in the third line seems
> >> somewhat grammatically awkward. I keep looking for a "je" to tie
> >> them in rather than having to depend on the comma. [...]
>
> > Actually, I rather like the asyndeton, with no conjunction.
>
> So do I. And they're being addressed, not referred to. The grammar
> may not require a conjunction, just as English doesn't in "Friends,
> Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears ...".
Right. Think of it in the following way: (1) You can add an address
to the beginning or the end of any sentence. (2) The outcome of the
application of Rule 1 is a sentence again => Rule 1 can apply to that.
> > Though I just came up with a possibility to lose the "chu'" and put
> > the conjunction back in, at the cost of changing a perfect rhyme to
> > a near-rhyme.
>
> jIngor 'e' Dachup'a'? jatlIj yIchop!
<naDtaHvIS> maj. not ngor tlhInganpu'.
> The syllable's easy to put back: {'a toH! peqImchu', jagh jup je}.
> It's the rhyme I don't like.
Also the stress on {je}.
> How about:
>
> cha' DaqDaq meQtaH weQwIj tlhegh;
> tugh, rInpa' ramvam, loj;
> 'a toH! jaghpu', juppu', pelegh --
> 'IH meQtaHvIS, 'ej Doj.
>
> This works if (a) the Klingons have no word for 'wick' and so a compound
> {weQ tlhegh} would be natural; and (b) it doesn't matter that the
> not-explicitly-stated subject of lines two and four is no longer
> identical to the subject of line one (i.e. 'it' refers to the modifier
> {weQwIj}, not to the whole noun phrase).
bomtlhegh cha' wIqelDI', ram. lojDI' weQ tlhegh, meQ 'e' mev weQ,
'ej vaj chuv nIn (how does one say `wax' or `stearin'?) net SaHbe'.
narghDI' SuvwI' qa', porgh luwoD tlhInganpu'.
> Does anyone like this better?
I think I do ... but I still can't help playing with Line 1 some more.
What do you think of {cha' DopDaq weQwIjDaq meQ tlhegh;}?
> > 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.
That is true: they're used because of the contrast, and `if the meaning
of any particular suffix is to be emphasized, the stress may shift to
that syllable' (_tKD_ 1.3). But even if the stress shift doesn't work,
one of the most common licenses in Russian iambic verse involves a
trochee en lieu of an iamb in the beginning of the line.
--'Iwvan
--
"mIw'e' lo'lu'ta'bogh batlh tlhIHvaD vIlIH [...]
poH vIghajchugh neH jIH, yab boghajchugh neH tlhIH"
(Lewis Carroll, "_Snark_ wamlu'")
Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected], [email protected]>
Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences
Home: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria