tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 07 17:03:32 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] voDleH Sut chu' (or, paghmo' tIn mIS)
Many thanks for your feedback, both of you :)
Gonna start out with what is perhaps the largest of chestnuts:
ghItlhta' loghaD,
>[8] What sort of word is chuQun? Can it refer to a single noble? Is
>it correct to treat it as plural? Perhaps I should use joHpu' or
>chuQun joHpu' something.
ghItlhta' Qov,
>I don't know that we're even sure that it doesn't refer to the
>concept of nobility, but I'd treat it like no'.
ghItlhta' De'vID,
>ghotpu' 'oS'a' {chuQun} mu'? *quvqu'ghach* 'oSbe''a'? {le'yo'} rurbe''a'? chay' ngoDHey wISov?
I'm honestly not certain; I've just always treated it as referring to people, and that seems to be the general consensus (as far as I can tell, this is the way it's used in Hamlet, paghmo' tIn mIS and pIn'a' qan paQDI'norgh, and an internet search shows many others have interpreted it similarly).
Probably worth asking MO about at the next qep he's at.
>>DIS law' ret
> ben law'
Wasn't sure if that's allowed, but it makes sense, since ben appears to act almost like a noun.
Would like to rephrase that whole sentence (DIS law' ret che' Sut chu' Qejqu'bogh voDleH'e'.), though, since it feels like it takes too long to get to the subject of the sentence; the voDleH'e'.
Perhaps I should make two sentences out of it?
ben law' yIntaH voDleH'e' bopbogh lutvam. Sut Qejqu'bogh ghaH/voDleHvam/-.
>> puHDujDaj lIghchugh SutDaj chu' much neH neH.
> Or maybe SutDaj chu' muchmeH neH puHDujDaj lIgh.
Good point. I rather like the <neH neH>, but bangmeywIj vIHoHrup net poQ. In the beginning I was still sticking very close to the English version; feel it got easier to deviate once I was more invested in the story (I'd never read it in full, before).
>>reH vengDajDaq QaQ yIn. Hoch jaj veng lu'el novpu'. wa' jaj
>>'elwI'pu'Daq leng cha' tojwI'pu'.
>I would have chosen {'elwI'pu' tlhej cha' tojwI'pu'}. Otherwise
>sounds to me like they were travelling around in the people entering.
The feeling I'd like to convey is that they travel among the enterers; to give a feeling that they first go unnoticed in the masses. However, if that's not the idea that gets across, then your version is better.
One more possibility is 'elwI'pu'Daq chaHtaH cha' tojwI'pu''e'. ("Two tricksters are at the enterers.")
>> chaH bejDI' voDleH Duy Sotqu' paghHey leghlaHmo'. paghna'vaD vIt 'e' chIl.
> 'e' chIl? Do you mean luj or Haj, maybe?
HIvqa' Denmargh! I meant to write <'e' chID>.
>> SutDaq SumchoH ghaH 'e' lutlhob tojwI'pu'. jatlh chaH, naDev yIghoS!
>> Sut 'IH wIrenlI'bogh yInuD!
> Maybe at this point the salient thing is wIchenmoHlI'bogh
Good point.
>>SutvaD lubuSmoH[1] Seylaw'bogh renwI'pu'qoq
>Do they really lubuSmoH? Maybe tungHa'moH.
>Why not: renwI'pu'qoq Seymo' pe'vIl Sutmey buS voDleH qeSwI'.
That works. However, the feeling I wish to convey is that they're pushy, rather than that the qeSwI' is genuinely interested in the thing they're excited about.
Of course, if I'm the only one who reads it that way, then there's no reason to keep it :P
>>[1] ...or should it be ghaHvaD Sutvam lubuSmoH, as with qawmoH and ghojmoH?
> That's certainly more understandable.
I personally am a bit disappointed that this appears to be the standard practice. I rather enjoyed the idea of <tlhIngan HolvaD qaghojmoH> meaning something like "I direct your learning towards Klingon."
Now, it feels like the English gloss for stem+moH is more important than the stem itself. qawmoH now means "cause something to be remembered", and ghojmoH "cause something to be learned".
>> Qub ghaH, qoH jIH'a'? Qu'wIjvaD jIpo'be''a'?
> Consider 'um or tlhIb as well as po' here (and originally).
Ah, thanks; tlhIb I have thought of, but not 'um. Since this is a recurring theme, it probably wouldn't hurt to use more variation in describing it.
>> tugh latlh Duy ngeH voDleH 'ej tlhoS nIb wanI'[4]. nuD 'ej bej 'ach
>> leghbe'. pagh leghchu'
> I know you're going for "s/he saw nothing at all" but it comes out to
> me more like, "he saw nothing perfectly. Consider {Sut leghbe'chu'}.
Actually, what I'm going for with the whole sequence (pagh leghchu' 'ach vay' leghHa' 'e' Har.) is "He saw nothing perfectly, but he thought he was mis-seeing something.", the idea being that there's nothing to see, but he thinks it is.
Perhaps something like this would get the point across better: vay' leghHa' 'e' Har ghaH 'ach paghna' leghchu' neH. {He thought he missaw something, but he merely saw a true nothing clearly.}
>>Qub Duyvam, jIQIpbe' 'e' vISovbej. vaj Qu'na'wIjvaD yapbej laHwIj.
>>Huj ghu'vam 'ach vIt tu'meH pagh 'ut.
>A comma after pagh would make that easier to read.
Probably true.
>>noychoH Sutqoq 'IH 'ej chenchu'pa' legh ghaH je neH voDleH.
> Something odd going on here after legh. I think you mean {legh je
> ghaH neH voDleH}.
As I understand it, je can follow a noun to mean "this thing, as well", thereby making this "The emperor wished that he, too, see the suit before it was finished."
I read <legh je ghaH neH voDleH> as "He wished to also SEE the suit (as opposed to just hearing about it)", whereas I want the emphasis on "HE". However, perhaps this could be accomplished by appending an -'e'?
>> bej Hoch ghot'e' qemta'bogh voDleH.
> But why -Daq bej. Do you mean {SIrghjan qoD bej} or {SIrghjan bej}?
The idea I want is "they looked in the direction of the SIrghjan (which was also the direction in which they should be able to see the Sut)".
>> QI' much'a' wa'Hu' ram naQ not Qong tojwI'pu'.
> I'm not accepting this as "one day before the military parade."
I was expecting some eyebrows to be raised about this.
Which part do you not accept? Using QI' much'a' to refer to a military parade, or using <X wa'Hu'> to mean "the day before X"?
One can probably do something with nungbogh or a two-sentence construction, but I figure since most time elements seem to function roughly as nouns do, this was an efficient way of expressing what I wanted.
I really don't like QI' much'a', myself, though. I considered QI' lop, but I didn't want to confuse it with QI'lop. QI' lopno' may avoid that confusion, but I'm not sure a parade constitutes a lopno'.
>>meQchu' jav weQ vaj vumqu' chaH net Har.
>>SIrghjanvo' Sut lujotlh[7] 'e' lughet.
>Ahh, I've finally realized that it's a loom not a sewing machine. You
>might need the idea that {SIrgh qengwI' lunechtaHmoH 'ach chImlaw'}.
>If it matters.
Thanks for the tip! Should probably add a sentence or two earlier on to describe in more detail what sort of SIrghjanmey they are. Also, this highlights something that one can view as either problematic or splendid: There's very little in the story to indicate in what era it takes place. Sure, it was "many years ago", but that could be 50 years, 100 years or 1000 (...not to mention that you don't know when this is being narrated; ENT, TOS, ENT... :P).
So, if one wishes to remain consistent (so that the reader doesn't have to retrofit his/her interpretation of the story midway), there are really two options:
1) Go into the story and add some stuff that makes it clear from the beginning when the story is set
OR
2) Go into the story and make sure there is hardly ANY evidence of what era the story is set in; leave it up to the reader to decide if it's in the Iron Age, at around the Industrial Revolution, modern times or even at some point in the future (told by a narrator from a still more distant future).
I'm personally rather fond of option #2.
I also rather like the fact that the story doesn't really reveal if it takes place in Denmark, Japan or even on Qo'noS :)
>>Sutqoq lupe'meH cha''etlh pe'wI'meyna' tIn lo'. ghangwI'Daq narghDI'
>>jul tugh vem voDleH 'ej SIbI' renwI'pu'qoq jaH. lutlhej[8] veng chuQun nIv.
>Kinda late to be taking the cloth off the loom. They're going to cut
>and finish the garments in one morning?
I had a similar reaction. However, that's how the story goes. I guess when all you have to work with is make-believe fabric, you can set your own schedule :P
> I would make it {tlhej}. Inherently plural nouns are grammatically singular.
I hear ya.
>>ghopDu'chaj pep tojwI'pu' 'ej vay' 'uchlaw'.
>>ghel yuDbogh wa', jatlh, yopwaHvam DaparHa''a'?
>>ghel tojbogh latlh, jatlh, wepvam DaparHa''a'?
>>ghel tojwI' wa'DIch, jatlh, ngupvam DaparHa''a'?
>>jang yuDbogh ta', jatlh, Hoch vIparHa'qu'.
>yuDbej'a'? neplI' 'ach yuD ... to me is a deeper character thing, not
>just one occasion.
I actually quite agree. I originally wrote <batlhHa' jang voDleH>, but for sake of rhyme, not reason, I changed it.
paq'batlh includes several instances of phrases similar to <jatlhDI' val> ("he/she spoke wisely"). I suppose I could write <jangDI' yuD ta'>, but that would destroy the rhyme, anyway, so then I may as well go with the original, which is more accurate.
Also, this could perhaps tie into the recent discussion on -taH. While I'll probably stick with <batlhHa' jang ta'>, I can't help but to consider the difference between <jang yuDbogh ta'> and <jang yuDtaHbogh ta'>. yuDtaHmeH yuDHa'bogh ta' DuH'a'? He's being dishonest when he answers, even though he may not be dishonest as a person.
>> jatlh tojwI' cha'DIch, qaH yItuQHa'choHneS. ghIq SIla'Daq SutlIj
>> chu' DatuQchoHmeH pIQaHlaH.
> You don't like {tuQmoH}?
I do not. I feel that <ghu vItuQmoH> should mean "I dress the baby", not "I put on the baby". However, judging by examples like qawmoH and tuQmoH (mentioned above), perhaps I need to accept tuQmoH as being more than an error.
>>pagh leghlaH pa' chuQun
>You mean "the room's nobility?" I think you can leave out pa'. We
>know the ones not in the room won't see anything.
I was actually being a bit naughty and going for "the there nobility". However, I agree; no such qualification is needed.
(If one DID need the distinction, one could use SaHbogh chuQun... ...but of course, then one gets a problem with the double entendre. There's always Dachbe', though.)
>>tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq chuQun naD Qoy voDleH.
> I'm confused by the change from tIngvo' to 'evDaq and chanDaq. Is
> there some significance? If it's "from the SW, to the NW to the E" I
> don't get why the movement. If it's from the SW, and in the NW and in
> the E" then you need a je after that.
As De'vID explains, it's an idiomatic expression meaning "all over the place". I feel it gives the impression that the Emperor is standing in one place and hearing praise from all around him, while Dat might make it sound like he walks around and receives praise in different places (of course, that can be solved with a pa' QamtaHvIS, but I still like the image the idiom creates in my mind).
>>ghIq 'el muchmey buSbogh qeSwI'Daj'e'. jatlh, qaH! HurDaq ghaHtaHneS
>>chup qengwI''pu''e'.
>chup qengwI'pu', hmm, I wonder who those will be, and how they differ
>from qeSwI'pu'
>>voDleH quvmoHmeH van toy'wI'pu'. ngupDaj lujenmoHmeH luwoH 'e'
>>lunID. luj 'ach Qap 'e' lughet.
>Ah of course, that kind of ngup.
QIvHa' veQ bargh! <ngup qengwI'pu''e'> vIghItlh 'e' vIHech.
That being said, I see now that I'd misunderstood the story, thanks to my lacking understanding of what a canopy was. I thought it was the same as his "train", which I took to be a long, cape-like thing, but I understand now that it's really something like what's shown in this illustration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emperor_Clothes_01.jpg
Anybody got a good word for that?
RE: 'e' vIteHnISmoH
>>[2] There are certainly other ways of expressing this; I just happen
>>to like the sound of this.
>I'm not fond of it, but I can't say why.
It's an unorthodox way of putting it, so one should probably expect that some like it and some do not.
I personally feel that it both feels like a colorful and perhaps a bit "old-timish" expression, fit for a qup. I also feel that it's a powerful one: I must shape the truth to be so!
Will see what others think of it; if it flies, then it flies, and otherwise it dies.
>>[6] Based on la'quv. Not quite kosher, I know, but I feel the
>>extravagant title feeds into the ridiculousness of this situation.
>I can take it. You could consider tevmey nob.
Good point. Not sure what exactly a tev is, however. In my mind, a stuffed bunny won at the carnival is a prize, and a Purple Heart is not. Therefore, I'm not sure this honor would be a tev, either.
Perhaps van'a' ("award")?
>>[7] I'm treating Sut as a whole set of clothes, as that's how I
>>interpret the gloss, "clothing" (and possibly even a whole pile of
>>clothing). As such, a single article of clothing would be Sut 'ay'
>>(or SutHom?). Qoch'a' vay'?
>I think any article of clothing is Sut and I use Sutmey or Sut for
>the whole lot. I always have to guard against thinking of it as "suit".
Indeed, the similarity is a bit too close for comfort.
That being said, the fact that the gloss really is "clothing" and not "piece of clothing" makes me think it's a collective noun.
>I liked that.
vaj jIQuch!
>And you see it distracted me from posting the next
>chapter of my story for a day, so it's a win for everyone. :-)
qabotchu'be'mo' jIQuch!
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol