tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 08 23:17:28 2012

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] voDleH Sut chu' [original header was mangled]

De'vID jonpIn ([email protected]) 

<p><br>
loghaD:<br>
&gt;&gt; *Is &lt;DaHjaj vaj&gt; the right order? vaj DaHjaj FEELS better, but I think that&#39;s because I&#39;m used to &quot;thus&quot; being used as a conjunction, not an adverb.</p>
<p>Qov:<br>
&gt; Geez, I&#39;ve been thinking of it as a conjunction, and always put it before the timestamp. I hope you&#39;re wrong about it going after and that what feels right is right. Oh Steven, is there canon with vaj before a timestamp?  I doubt it, because you generally need to be writing a fair amount of narrative before you have a need for such a thing. Before the asterisk, I read {DaHjaj vaj* De&#39; lI&#39; vIghoj} as &quot;Today I learn useful warrior information.&quot;  Which made perfect sense, because back when I wrote my beginner column for HolQeD, each lesson was presented with battle metaphors.</p>

<p>vIlaDDI&#39;, &quot;warrior information&quot; vIyaj jIH je.  </p>
<p>qatlh {vaj} nungnIS {DaHjaj}?  pab chut tu&#39;lu&#39;&#39;a&#39;?</p>
<p>Qov:<br>
&gt; At least the corrected versions are on the blog. Maybe I&#39;ll re-edit it with corrections and release it as an e-book. Is that possible without going through a publisher?</p>
<p>HIja&#39;.  Qatlhqu&#39;be&#39;.</p>
<p>loghaD:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; So it should be {paghna&#39;vaD vIt &#39;e&#39; ngIl} ?</p>
<p>Qov:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &quot;He dared to tell the truth regarding nothing at all.&quot;  Still escapes<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; me.  Do we need {&#39;e&#39; ngIlbe&#39;} instead?</p>
<p>chay&#39; {ngIl} lo&#39;lu&#39;?  </p>
<p>wa&#39; chovnatlhqoq neH vISam: {qab jIH n(a)gIl}.  &quot;Face me if you dare&quot; &#39;oSlaw&#39;.  par Hol &#39;oHbej.  *bleck*</p>
<p>latlh chovnatlh wIghaj&#39;a&#39;?</p>
<p>loghaD:<br>
&gt;&gt; I interpret &lt;paghna&#39;vaD vIt&gt; as &quot;tell the truth to nobody at all&quot;. I take it you regard the receiver of the truthtelling as the object rather than the beneficiary?</p>
<p>Qov:<br>
&gt; I didn&#39;t understand {paghna&#39;vaD} there as meaning &quot;no one.&quot; I was stuck trying to understand it as nothing at all. I don&#39;t think &quot;He dared tell no one&quot; should be translated with the negative in the same place in Klingon. I think it&#39;s like the {chIch HoHbe&#39;} example and it should be {vay&#39;vaD vIt &#39;e&#39; ngIlbe&#39;}.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; I hope others will read this and comment so it&#39;s not just my take you&#39;re getting.</p>
<p>{vay&#39;vaD vItvIp}.  pagh {vItvIp} neH.  pItlh.</p>
<p>{paghna&#39;vaD vIt} vIyajHa&#39; jIH je.  {vIt, &#39;ej vay&#39; Soq paghna&#39;} &#39;e&#39; Hechlaw&#39;.  (i.e., &quot;He tells the truth, to the benefit of definitely no one&quot;; or &quot;He tells the truth, to no one at all&quot; -- chaq vaS&#39;a&#39;Daq vIt jachqu&#39;, &#39;ach jachtaHvIS chImchu&#39; vaS&#39;a&#39; &#39;ej Qoy pagh.)</p>

<p>wa&#39; DoS wIqIp Qov jIH je, qechvam &#39;oSmeH {vay&#39;vaD vangbe&#39;} qaq law&#39; {paghvaD vang} qaq puS.</p>
<p>Qov:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Like if I say {chIch HoHbe&#39;} to translate &quot;She didn&#39;t kill him on<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; purpose,&quot; when really it means &quot;She deliberately did not kill him,&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; and I need {bong HoH} to be sure of transmitting my meaning.  I still<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; make this error.</p>
<p>loghaD:<br>
&gt;&gt; I&#39;d like to agree with you, but there are some canonical sentences that make me wonder. For instance:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Hoch DaSopbe&#39;chugh batlh bIHeghbe&#39; - Eat everything or you will die without honor.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Like you, I&#39;d expect batlh Heghbe&#39; to mean &quot;You non-die honorably&quot; or &quot;You honorably go on living&quot;, but that doesn&#39;t seem to be the case.</p>
<p>&#39;ach tlhInganpu&#39;vaD SuvwI&#39;pu&#39; qan tu&#39;lu&#39;be.  Hegh Hoch.  vaj mujbej {batlh [Heghbe&#39;]}, &#39;ej lughbej {[batlh Hegh]be&#39;}.  {batlh [bIHeghbe&#39;]} jatlh neHchugh vay&#39;, {batlh bIyIn} jatlhlaH.</p>

<p>Qov:<br>
&gt; Damn. I hate that one. I can actually say that it proves the point that such things can be ambiguous. At any rate Klingon is clearer with fewer negatives or the negative on the thing that really needs negating. We can have the same thing in English, really. One could read &quot;She didn&#39;t kill him on purpose&quot; differently depending on whether he was dead or not. Indeed it might make a good chapter cliffhanger. &quot;Wait, did she just accidentally kill him, or did she pull that blow?&quot;</p>

<p>loghaD:<br>
&gt;&gt; I seem to recall there were other examples, but that&#39;s the only one I can remember right now. If it IS the only one, perhaps one can put it aside.</p>
<p>ghaytan mu&#39;tlheghvam rur {nom yIghoSqu&#39;}.  {[nom yIghoS]qu&#39;} &#39;oSlaw&#39;, {nom yI[ghoSqu&#39;]} &#39;oSbe&#39;law&#39;.</p>
<p>--<br>
De&#39;vID</p>

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level