tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 08 10:40:08 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tis the season KLBC
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tis the season KLBC
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:39:40 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
> In the Eastern Orthodox church a common Easter greeting is "Christ
> is risen." to which one responds, "Indeed, risen." If we throw out
> the name, "Christ" and write the English as, "He is risen." and
> leave the response the same, are they rendered in Tlhingon-Hol as;
>
> peplu'pu' (He is risen.) and peplu'chu'pu' (Indeed, risen.)
>
> I'm wary of both lu' and pu' having seen many a translator stumble
> while trying to use them.
{-lu'} indicates an indefinite subject, not simply one that you
haven't explicitly stated. It isn't appropriate here. I'm not sure
what your logic was. The {-lu'} conveys a meaning like "one is
risen" or "rising has occured."
{-pu'} indicates that the action is already complete at the time the
sentence refers to. It is exactly right for something like "he is
risen." In this case there is a better suffix, however, because I
happen to know that the religion in question holds that it was
preordained that Christ rise on the third day, that he did it
on purpose to prove his point. Therefore {-ta'} is even better.
{pepta' *Christ*} "Christ is risen" {pepta'} "he is risen."
{-chu'} indicates that the action is done perfectly, utterly,
completely. {pepchu'ta'} - he is risen all the way, completely
risen. I think the rejoinder is meant to emphasize instead the
certainty of his rising. Use {-bej}. {pepbejta'} - he is risen
indeed, he is undoubtedly risen.
vaghleS pepta' Christ - In five days Christ will have risen
DaHjaj pepta' Christ - Today Christ is risen
wa'Hu' pep Christ - Yesterday, Christ rose.
I expect that some would argue against {pep}, preferring {HeghHa'} or
{yInqa'} - I kind of like {yInqa'} myself - but {pep} for me evokes
the same image of literally lifting up as "rise" does.
Qov