tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 02 09:02:56 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Esther I 1-9
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Marnen Laibow-Koser)
>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 19:02:49 EST
Well, having said my last letter, I might as well check out what you have.
How 'bout "chuQun", especially if you're using it in the plural? I'm not
sure which meaning of court is "bo'DIj"; my impression would be the legal
one, and I don't know how comfortable I'd feel about extending the polysemy
of English over to Klingon.
Aww, if you're going to stick with transliterations for "hodu" (which I
think is the right thing), then be consistent: the ropes were made of
"butz" (butlh, maybe?), and it was "maday"
Ah, call it a book; that's all it is.
>1. qaStaHviS *HoDu* *quS* je jojDaq wa'vatlh cha'maH yoS'a'mey che'pu'bogh
> *'aHaSweroS* jajmey qaSpu' wani'mey.
wanI'meyvam might be more useful, but that's no big deal. Take what I said
in the last letter about "-pu'" as read.
>2. *SuSa* veng jenDaq ta'quSDajDaq ba'pu'Di' ta' *'aHaSweroS*,
>3. qaStaHviS che'ghachDaj DiS wejDich yaSpu'DajvaD bo'Dijnuvpu'DajvaD je 'uQ'a'
As I recall, it's a banquet for all his officers and servants. Maybe
yaSpu'Daj/chuQunDaj toy'wI'pu'Daj je?
> chenmoHpu' *'aHaSweroS*. SaHpu' *perSiya* *meDiya* je mangghom yaSpu',
> chuQun, yoS'a' che'wi'pu' je,
Me, I'd leave off the king's name here, since it's not mentioned in the
original: it's just [he] made (the pronoun is implicit in the verb, like in
>4. 'ej qaStaHviS jajmey law', qaStaHviS biD DiS, wo'Daj mipghach DojghachDaj
> Dunghach je 'angpu'.
bID DIS? So a Persian year was just 360 days long? I'm sorry, I shouldn't
be correcting like this, but I'm afraid that in the way I do things anyway,
especially when you're translating something like the Bible, which is
well-known, you should do your best to say what *it* says and not recast
it. The text says one hundred and eighty days, and there's a perfectly
good way to say that in Klingon, isn't there?
>5. rintaHDi' wani'vam, *SuSa* veng jenDaq Qongbogh loDpu' HochvaD ta' qachHom
> Du'HomDaq Soch jaj yupma' chenmoHpu' ta'. potlhwi'vaD potlhbe'wi'vaD je
not sure what the "-taH" adds on rIntaHDI'. And it's the days that are
over, right? The word you translate here as yupma' is the same one you
called an 'uQ'a' before. I suppose either one is okay, but you should be
consistent. Your breaking out of the "great and small" into a separate
sentence is creative, and I can't really fault it; it keeps things from
being really incomprehensible.
>6. 'iHchoHmeH Du'Hom, baS chiS QebmeyDaq *linen* tlheghHommey nagh chiS tutmey
> Doq *qoton* ngupmey chiS Doq je lurarlu', 'ej *porviriy* nagh chiS naghmey
> wovghachmey Sar je naghHom let 'iH ravDaq baS chiS baS SuD je quS'a'mey.
Again, I have to wonder how you know these things happened to beautify the
courtyard. They were probably there to show off, but no purpose is
mentioned at all in the text. Cotton? As I recall, it says, "[there were]
white, green, and blue [hangings] held with cords of <butz> and purple, on
silver rods and marble columns". Well, I guess I can accept "cotton",
since the word for "white" is a particular kind of cloth, not a color. But
where are the various cords? Now here we have a problem, what do you do if
there really isn't a good word, like for purple? And green and blue are
both SuD. Rather than drive yourself nuts describing the pavement, just
leave it as "a floor of silver and gold etc"; that's all it really says.
>7. 'ej baS SuD Hivje'meyDaq tlhutlhlaHwi'mey lujablu'pu', 'ej Hivje'mey Hoch
> pimchuq; 'ej ta' Hiq law'bejqu' tu'lu'pu' -- 'e' ghajniS ta'.
tlhutlhlaHwI'mey? things that can drink? Tough problem, that one.
Word-order wrong in "HIvje'mey Hoch pImchuq"; should have the verb first.
Not sure what "ghajnIS ta'" is for, but it's probably a reasonable
>8. 'ach chut lobbe'pu' tlhutlhghach: ra'pu' pagh; tlhutlh luneHDi' mebpu' Hoch
> jab jabwi'pu' 'e' ghaH ra'pu' ta'.
>9. ta' *'aHaSweroS* ta' juHDaq be'pu'vaD yupma' chenmoHpu' be'ta' *vaStiy*
Maybe ta'be' for queen: king's wife. Likely sexist, but perhaps it's
correct in this case (though if I recall my midrash correctly it isn't: it
was Vashti who had the royal blood, being of the family of Nebuchadnezzar,
and Ahasuerus used to be a horse-washer. Note also that from Ahasueros'
point of view, Vashti is always called "Vashti the Queen", while from her
POV it's "Queen Vashti". But I digress.)
- Esther I 1-9
- From: email@example.com (Marnen Laibow-Koser)