tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 07 05:27:56 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh wa'maH Soch: romuluSngan SuvchoHmeH ngeD
<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Robyn Stewart <<a href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>> wrote:</span><br></div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">> "HIja'," jatlh Hota'ro'. "yIlegh. QujvetlhvaD boqchuq ngaH Sogh, ya Sogh je.</span></blockquote><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#005001"><br></font><span>Ahh, okay problem here. One thing at a time:</span><br><span></span><br><span>1. ngaH's rank: ...Later the fat yeoman addressed her by rank, and vajar thought the yeoman was talking to him, because ngaH's rank is "HoD." </span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>DaH vIqaw.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>2. ngaH Sogh and ya Sogh were both intended as possessives, "ngaH's lieutenant" and "the tactical officer's lieutenant." </span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh. They do make perfect sense that way, in hindsight. I should have been able to figure it out when {ya Sogh} wasn't working right as a title. I definitely should have revisited my interpretation when {ngaH Sogh} gave me trouble with both the rank and the presence of the named person. Not having {ngaH HoD} handy in my brain was likely a contributing factor, but I probably would just have pointed it out as one of several continuity problems that, as it turns out, are just in my mind.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>As I wrote and proofread I didn't notice how they could be misinterpreted, but they obviously were misinterpreted by a competent speaker of Klingon, so I need to fix them.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Let's see: jonpIn Sogh won't work if ya Sogh didn't, so {ngaH toy'bogh Sogh'e'}, {to' 'ay' Sogh} je? jonwI' 'ay' Sogh/ya 'ay' Sogh vay' yIchup.</span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You probably wouldn't have mentioned their superiors if it weren't going to be important, so I can't seriously suggest {...boqchuq Soghpu'vetlh.}</div><div><br></div><div>Or maybe I can, if the next sentence is something like {ngaH/jonpIn toy' wa' 'ej ya toy' latlh.}</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">rep vIghochchugh, ghaytan Qa'bar DujHomDaq Qollu'.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span></blockquote><span></span><br><span>tugh qechvetlh DachovlaH. bIQDaq 'eSSIm pumba'pu' 'ach Qa'bar DujDaj pawpu''a' Mossam?</span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Narratives that skip around in time give me difficulty. I'll stop trying to assign "offscreen" actions to situations based on my guesses about the parallel events. I'm obviously not very good at it.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span><blockquote type="cite"><span>> ratlh wa'</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>> latlh Qel, rachwI' puS je. vajar lumer SaHbogh nuvpu' mI'.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>**</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>naDev lugh'a' <_lu_mer>? mer mI' 'ar?</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>jISovbe'. jaS vang Hol Sar. tlhIngan HolvaD chovnatlh wIghaj'a'</span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A question like this might be worth starting an explicit discussion in a separate thread.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span><blockquote type="cite"><span>> 'ach chay' vang.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>qech vIyajbej, 'ej mu'tlhegh vIlaj, 'ach chenmeH pab nIt</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>vISamlaHbe'law'. jIQubqu'taHchugh, chaq jIponHa''egh 'ej mu'tlhegh</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>vIlajHa'.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>SenglIj vIghovbe'.</span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>ghelwI' Degh Hutlh mu'tlhegh. ghelqu'be' 'e' vIQub. ghelbejchugh, ngabchu' SengHeywIj.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span><blockquote type="cite">><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "> jatlhtaHvIS vajarDaq</span></blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><span>> SIq 'ej bej.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>**</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>'ut'a' <-Daq>? yapbe''a' <vajar SIq 'ej bej>?</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>rut mumISmoH SIq chutmey. vIHotchugh 'oHDaq jISIq'a' 'ach vIcha'chugh neH 'oH vISIq'a'?</span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>latlh ja'chuqmeH Soj 'oH.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sevmey qelchoH 'Iv? toH, chaq Qa'bar DujDaq QaptaH DaqwI' cha'DIch.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>chaq qeng Qugh Qel.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>wej poH Dangu'chu'be'ta' 'e' vIHar. taghDI' 'ay''a' wa'maH, gharben cha' mejpu' vajar. taghDI' 'ay''a'vam veSDaq pawlI' vajar. qaSqa'lI' poH nIb.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">ghutarmo' Hagh 'op 'ach Sagh ghu' 'e' tlhoj 'op.</span></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>wa' Doch 'oH'a' 'opvam'e'? In English, "some are" if you're talking</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>about a count of things, but "some is" if you're talking about a part</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>of a thing. The difference would probably be mirrored by {'op Doch}</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>and {Doch 'op} in Klingon. Is {'op} alone singular or plural when it</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>means "some (of them)"? If it's plural, {'e' _lu_tlhoj 'op}.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Again, dunno. I'll put a lu- on that one for you.</span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Don't do it "for" me. I left it as an open question. </div></div><div><br></div><div>-- ghunchu'wI'</div><div><span></span></div></body></html>_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol