tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 04 03:38:30 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] romyo' julyet je: bI'reS
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>jIjatlhpu' jIH:<br>> romyo' julyet je: bI'reS<div>
<p dir="ltr">> nur rap lughajbogh cha' tuqmey tu'lu',<br>
> vero'na' 'IHDaq qaS ghe'naQmaj Dun;<br>
> muStaHghachDaj tIQvo' chenchoH Seng chu',</p>
<p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">On reflection I think that {muSchuqtaHghach} "mutual hatred" might be better.<br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">mujang De'vID, jatlh:<br></p><p dir="ltr">> I don't think you can say {X-vo' chenchoH Y} unless X is a physical place.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">I take a slightly more liberal view on {-Daq} and {-vo'} as spatial locatives, following the canon proverb {wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap}. That proverb doesn't imply that everyone needs necessarily to be in the same *physical* location. In any case, I think of it as like a metaphorical new shoot of trouble emerging from the soil of the two houses' ancient hatred.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">jIH:<br></p><p dir="ltr">
> ghopDu' mIl HoQmoH quv ghajbogh 'Iw chun.<br>
> HeghmoHbogh cha' gholpu'vam tuqmeyvaD<br>
> yInnIS[1] bang chang'eng 'e' maq QI'tu' San.<br>
> [1] The English here is "a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life",</p><p dir="ltr">> in which "take their life" could carry meanings of both birth and suicide.</p><p dir="ltr">> I couldn't work out a decent wordplay as written, but {yInnIS} "they need</p><p dir="ltr">> to live" could alternately be read as {yIn nIS} "they disrupt lives".</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">De'vID:<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> {nargh yInchaj} "their lives appear/escape"? Just a thought.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">And an excellent one. Let me try again (also changing {-vaD} to {-vo'} in the preceding line to compensate):<br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">HeghmoHbogh cha' gholpu'vam tuqmeyvo'<br>
nargh bang chang'eng qa' 'e' maq QI'tu' San.</p><p dir="ltr">vangHa'pu' chaH, tIvup! tuqchaj pabQo',</p><p dir="ltr">'ej Heghchajmo' cha' tuq yol ngo' luvan.<br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p>
<p dir="ltr">jIH:</p><p dir="ltr">> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqayvetlh chuD QeH,</p>
<p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">De'vID:<br></p><p dir="ltr">> I had trouble understanding that {QeH} was a noun, rather than an adjective</p><p dir="ltr">> modifying {chuD}.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">The reading with {QeH} as an adjective makes less sense semantically: "the lovers' angry kin who indeed endure".<br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">taH:<br></p><p dir="ltr">> Also, possibly {chuD} is too broad for "parents".</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">I was going for this for two reasons: 1) the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets in the story goes beyond just the parents to include most members of the two warring houses, so I thought the choice was appropriate; but 2) more importantly I couldn't find any easy recast for "parents" that didn't go to at least five syllables (vavchaj SoSchaj je), eating up a full half-line. Are you thinking of an alternative?<br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">taH:<br></p><p dir="ltr">> It would also help to put in explicit plural markers.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">yajchu'. For both {parmaqqay} and {chuD}, you think? So three alternatives:<br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqaypu' chuD QeH.</p><p dir="ltr">taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqay chuDmey QeH. <br></p><p dir="ltr">taHqu'bogh parmaqqaypu' chuDmey QeH.<br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">jIH:</p><p dir="ltr">> parmaqchaj'e' bejbogh Hegh je wImuch;<br>
> yol Qaw' puq yIn lughanglu'pu'bogh neH,</p>
<p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">De'vID:<br></p><p dir="ltr">> Good contrast between {ghang} and {van} used two lines above.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">tlho'. :)<br></p>
<p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">jIH:</p><p dir="ltr">> DaH vaSmajDaq cha' rep lutvam wIruch.[2]<br>
> [2] Though strictly we don't have canon for it, I like using {ruch} in this way.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">De'vID:<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> ?{Qu'lIj yIruch} looks to me like it's missing a verb. I would write this as</p><p dir="ltr">> {Qu'lIj yIchav, yIruch!} ?{lutvam wIruch} looks to me like it's missing something</p><p dir="ltr">> for the same reason. What are we doing with {lut}? {bej}? {ja'}? {much?}</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">I understand your point. Does this work any better for you?</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">naDev cha' rep lutvetlh wIcha' net ruch.<br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">taH:<br></p><p dir="ltr">> I interpret {targhlIj yIngagh, yIruch} as {targhlIj yIngagh, [targhlIj Dangagh 'e']</p><p dir="ltr">> yIruch}, where the part in [brackets] is implicit.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">Your implication is that {ruch} is in fact capable of taking an object, if that's the case.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">jIH:<br></p>> rIn bI'reS, 'ach vay' Qoybe'lu'pu'chugh,<br><p dir="ltr">
> tuvchugh teSDu', yajmoHjaj muchmaj Dugh.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">De'vID:<br></p><p dir="ltr">> The original is directed to the watcher, rather than an indefinite person,</p><p dir="ltr">> and I think it's better if it's kept the same.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">That's fair too. I have to confess my choice was done in the main to avoid having to choose between singular or plural for the direct address (singular as a reader, or plural as an audience). I'll go with plural for now. What do you think of:</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">rIn bI'reSvam, 'ach vay' boQoybe'chugh,<br>tuvchugh teSDu'raj, QIjjaj muchmaj Dugh.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">QeS<br></p></div> </div></body>
</html>_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}