tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 11 06:11:13 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] romyo' julyet je: bI'reS
QeS 'utlh:
>> muStaHghachDaj tIQvo' chenchoH Seng chu',
De'vID:
>> I don't think you can say {X-vo' chenchoH Y} unless X is a physical place.
QeS 'utlh:
> 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.
I don't know... I think {muStaHghachvo'} crosses a line somehow that
{wa' DolDaq} doesn't cross, but I can't quite articulate what that
line is. In the case of {wa' DolDaq}, I can sort of imagine drawing a
circle around a group of people and calling them "one whole". There is
still some kind of concrete, locative sense. But with
{muStaHghachvo'}, I feel that it's too abstract.
But don't mind me. I guess I'm just more conservative in how I
interpret {-Daq}/{-vo'} than you.
QeS 'utlh:
>> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqayvetlh chuD QeH,
De'vID:
>> I had trouble understanding that {QeH} was a noun, rather than an
>> adjective modifying {chuD}.
QeS 'utlh:
> The reading with {QeH} as an adjective makes less sense semantically: "the
> lovers' angry kin who indeed endure".
I guess it's the fact that there are three nouns in a row, which makes
me want to interpret it as (noun) (noun adjective). I'm not sure that
it makes *less* sense semantically, without knowing the English. "The
lovers' angry kin who survive (i.e., they continue to live after the
lovers' death, and they're angry because of their deaths)" made
perfect sense to me.
De'vID:
>> Also, possibly {chuD} is too broad for "parents".
QeS 'utlh:
> 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?
No, but maybe use {qup} somehow to indicate that it's the older (i.e.,
parents') generation?
De'vID:
>> It would also help to put in explicit plural markers.
QeS 'utlh:
> yajchu'. For both {parmaqqay} and {chuD}, you think? So three alternatives:
>
> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqaypu' chuD QeH.
>
> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqay chuDmey QeH.
>
> taHqu'bogh parmaqqaypu' chuDmey QeH.
Looking at it like that, can {parmaqqay} be used that way? I mean, to
refer to someone other than the speaker's {parmaqqay}, without any
possessive suffixes. I sort of think of {parmaqqay} as if it were a
word like "darling"... or something like that. It's perfectly fine to
call someone "darling", or to refer to "his darling" or "her darling"
or "their darlings" (e.g., children), but you wouldn't call two people
"the darlings" when you mean that they are darlings to each other
(that is, if you called two people "the darlings", I'd interpret it as
two people considered darlings to yourself).
So {parmaqqaypu'} looks odd to me, does it look odd to anyone else?
De'vID:
>> I interpret {targhlIj yIngagh, yIruch} as {targhlIj yIngagh, [targhlIj
>> Dangagh 'e'] yIruch}, where the part in [brackets] is implicit.
QeS 'utlh:
> Your implication is that {ruch} is in fact capable of taking an object, if
> that's the case.
Yes, I take that the object of {ruch} is a verb (sentence), so that it
works like {Sov} and {SIv} and so on.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol