tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 25 04:32:46 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: QISmaS
- From: Felix Malmenbeck <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: QISmaS
- Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:30:42 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US, sv-SE
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
- Thread-index: AQHLpAmtXcsp3ljPTEiPgP95ghiRepOw/nX+
- Thread-topic: QISmaS
tay poHvam botIvtaH 'e' vItul.
SepwIjDaq yul ram lulop HochHom, vaj DaHjaj leS HochHom. jIvutnIS, 'ach pavqu'be', vaj jajvam bID neH qaStaHvIS jIvut.
yul ram tay vItIvqu'pu'. nughmey law' lurDechmey wIDuD yul ram wIloptaHvIS. juHmajDaq yeSuS ghu' HewHom tu'lu', 'ej retlhDajDaq tera' «goat» HewHommey mach tu'lu'. no'ma' nugh «tomte» qa' HewHommey retlhmeyDaq «Coca-Cola» Senta' tlhaweS HewHommey tu'lu' je.
wa'Hu' po chIrgh tay wIjeS, 'ej wa'Hu' ram «Donald Duck» QISmaS much wIbej (Suverye' SepDaq potlhqu' «Donald Duck» QISmaS much. vaghmaH wa' ben tagh lurDechvam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_All_of_Us_to_All_of_You#Sweden ), ghIq Karl-Bertil Jonsson yul lut wIbej (potlhqu' lurDechvam je http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_om_Karl-Bertil_Jonssons_julafton ).
QIStIyen lurDechmey, norS no' lurDechmey, lurDechmey Huj, «Coca-Cola» loD Doq... ...'a tay'taHghach 'oHtaH yul tay qolqoS'e'. qolqoSvammo' tay Dun 'oH.
> My understanding of the verse is that "only" in "only begotten son" is in
> the sense of "sole, single, alone" rather than "merely, just", isn't it?
> I'd have used {mob} instead: {boghpu'bogh puqloDDaj mob nob}.
Aye, I'm also not quite sure that neH works here, as it doesn't exclude the possibility that Qun'a' had multiple sons or daughters but figured he didn't need to send all of them.
Also, if one were to use neH, it'd have to go after puqloDDaj, not boghpu'bogh, or else it would seem to mean "his son who was merely born".
Calling his son "alone" doesn't quite sit right with me, either, though.
A word for "to be the one and only" striked me as something which could be very useful. A future question for the Hol chenmoHwI', perhaps?
I'm drawn to think of this sentence from the sixth line of Hamlet:
Original Klingon: bImatlhba', qarqu'mo' bIcholmeH poHlIj.
Proper translation: You are obviously loyal, because your time of drawing near is very accurate.
Phony Federation rip-off: You come most carefully upon your hour.
Perhaps something similar would work for John 3:16?
wa' puqloD neH boghmoHta' Qun. reH yInmeH Qaw'be'lu'meH je voqbogh Hoch, qo'vaD puqloDDaj nobta' Qun. qo' parHa'qu'ba' Qun,
[God cause-ta' only one son to be born. So that all who are faithful will live forever and also so that they will not be destroyed, God gave his son to the world. God obviously really un-dislikes the world.]
Used Qun insead of Qun'a', here. On the one hand, one can seldom go wrong with using augmentative suffixes or epithets to describe one's deity, but I'm thinking that an -'a' here might imply that there is more than one god, which is kind of a big no-no in biblical contexts.