tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 08 13:40:46 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

KBTP: Mark's Jonah



>From: nsn@vis.mu.OZ.AU (Nick NICHOLAS)
>Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 15:20:11 EDT


>Grrrrrr.

>Hmpf. Now that all is out of the way...

>... Mark, old bean, I've finally cut the Gordian knot, and printed out your
>translation and looked at it. Lots and lots of juicy commentary follows.

Thanks, Nick!  I've been swamped by the voluminous outpourings of MAAN and
_Mark_ to make sense of any of it; that doesn't mean you should give up on
posting it.

>}'ej HuchDaj DIl 'ej joH'a'vo' tarSISDaq chaH tlhejmeH 'oH 'el.

>Huch DIl'a'? No, sir. DIl means "pay for", so you're saying he's paying for
>his money. You mean to say "pay with", and I'd suggest "HuchDaj lo'" for that.

Blah.  I'd hoped to get away with stretching that verb.  Your suggestion
doesn't work either, in that it points out a problem with mine: the
original has "and he paid *its* fare" (i.e. the boat's).  You can tell 'cuz
the boat is feminine and Jonah's masculine.  Maybe just "Huch nob"?  Come
to think of it, the Hebrew is "gave", not "paid".

>chaH 'iv?

Doesn't say, but they're in the text.  I warned you about how literal I
get.  Presumably the crew of the boat, and the other passengers.

>}'ej bIQ'a'Daq jev,

>Too much of a grammatical liberty for me. jevghach at the least, and probably
>something more like mudralghach.

I'm starting to get less comfortable about gratuitous -ghach's on unsufixed
verbs, but that's another story.  I'll have to rethink this one.

>Too many 'ej's btw. In my _marqoS_, in the original of which just about every
>sentence starts with "kai", I just left them out most of the time. They're
>not really contributing anything substantial.

You're definitely right (bIlughbej); my problem was that I was so used to
them all over the place in the Hebrew (as they are in the Greek) that it
felt funny to drop them.  I tried varying them for 'ach and vaj now and
then, but I'll have to lose some.

>}chaq joH'a' wIbelmoH vaj maHeghbe'.>>

>I'd have said wIbelmoHchugh; any reason why you don't? The -chugh-less 
>construct is certainly difficult to understand.

Well, it's not in the original.  I think it works fine as is.  If you put
the -chugh there it seems to mean something else.  "Cry out to your god!
Maybe we'll please god, and thus not die" is something other than "Cry out
to your god!  Maybe, if we please god, we won't die".  The former is what I
was trying to say.

>}vaj SuD, 'ej yona 'anglu'.

>'anglu'? Mpf. Not terribly clear. Perhaps lellu'?

It was a stab.  The original has them saying "let's cast lots" and the lot
fell on Jonah.  lellu' doesn't work for me either, I'm afraid.  'anglu'
doesn't seem so bad.  Maybe le'moHlu'?  Was singled out?

>}QapghachlIj nuq?  'ej nuqvo' bIghoS?  nuq 'oH wo'lIj'e'? 

>By Krankorian edict, that 'oH may be superfluous.

Maybe, but I think I like it there.

>}'ej chaHvaD jang <<'IbrIyngan jIH, 'ej joH'a', bIQ'a' yav je chenmoHbogh
>}chal joH'e' vItoy'.>>

>Is the joH'a' in apposition with the remainder of the sentence? As it stands,
>the ambiguity is very confusing, and at the least, I'd put joH'a' at the
>end of the sentence. (Think of it as heavy clause movement... to the left.)

Yes, that's apposition there, hence the comma.  I can see moving it as you
suggest.  It'll still be a bit tough to read.

>}joH'a'vo' Haw' 'e' luSovmo', chaHvaD ja'ta'mo'.

>I believe Klingon has no indirect quotes. Change the verb from ja', or
>make it a direct quote.

I agree that Klingon has no indirect quotes, but I'm not sure that this is
an attempt at one.  "For they knew he was fleeing from God, because he had
told them [no object]" maybe?  What other verb would you recommend?  I'm
not sure this needs changing.

>}<<SuH joH'a', yIn loDvammo' maHeghbe'jaj,

>yIn loDvam? Don't you mean loDvam yIn, "the life of this man"?

Yep.  Hebrew's noun-noun goes the other way, and sometimes I get lost.

>}<<'oy'wIjDaq jIHtaHvIS joH'a'vaD jIjachpu' 'ej mujang,

>I'm surprised at you, Mark. "I am in pain" is English idiom, pure and simple.

Not really.  Not here, anyway.  The Hebrew is "In my pain" (or maybe "in my
narrow-place"; pain is related to being squeezed somewhere restricting).  I
suppose I could have said "whilst I was in pain" using "-taHvIS" (sigh... I
still miss a good verb for "feel an emotion"; probably one of the few
things that L'aadan did well).

>}pungchaj ghajHa' ramwI' ngeb toy'wI'pu',

>Is there an apposition in these last three words? I don't understand them.

Let's see if I can make sense of this; it made little sense in Hebrew or in
English translations...  The translations I saw had something like "those
who worship empty vanities abandon their own mercy".  No help there.  The
commentary I see here implies that they abandon God, who does mercy with
them, but that seems a little too interpretive.  It's not apposition, it's
just Noun-noun with the first noun ({ramwI'}) modified by the verb {ngeb}.

>}'ach ghogh tlho' vIlo'taHvIS qatoy' jIH'e',

>tlho' ghogh, I'd think.

I was probably thinking of using it as a verb, an adjective on "ghogh"./
I'll reverse it to the noun-noun style.

>}Dochmey vI'Ippu'bogh vInob, toDghach ghajmo' joH'a'.>>

>The Lord *has* salvation? This doesn't even imply "The Lord *owns* salvation".
>ghajmoH, perhaps: "grants".

It's more "salvation is the Lord's", or possibly "salvation comes from the
Lord".  Maybe somethign weird like toDghach Hal/mung ghaH joH'a''e'?

>}'ej bIQ'a' Ha'DIbaH ra' joH'a', vaj puHDaq yona [SopHa'].

>SopHa' is OK; you might consider "burghvo' haw'moH/teq"

Maybe... SopHa' is so nice tho! :)

>}vaj SopQo'ghach lura', 'ej Sut ghegh tuQ potlhchaj ramwI'chaj je.

>Why is this not Sopbe'ghach?

Because fasting is a voluntary *refusal* to eat, not simply failing to do
so.  If you don't eat because there's no food around then bISopbe'.  If
you're not eating because you're on a hunger strike or for religious
reasons or something, then bISopQo'.

>}'ej De' Hev nInvey ta', 'ej quSDajvo' Hu',

>As you did elsewhere, maybe make this *ninvey* ta' Qumlu'

Actually, I switched it back to "joH'a' SoQ Hev yona..." because it's
closer to the original.  The other phrasing would be perfect for places
that say "and the Lord spoke to Moses saying".  The phrase here is
definitely "And the matter reached the King..."

>}'ej jach, 'ej ra'mo' ta' yaSDaj je nInveyDaq jatlhlu'

>You substituted yaS with chuQun; chuQun "nobility" sounds more like an
>institution than a group of people. chuQunghotpu', perhaps?

Maybe.  Nobility sounds like people to me.

>}'ej Hechaj mIghvo' ralghachchajvo' ngaSbogh ghopDu'chaj je chegh'eghjaj.

>Thanks for the chegh'egh ;)

Told you I use it!  This isn't the first time...

>The old Because of the ship in which I flew problem. I don't think this is
>any solution, Mark. I'd seriously advocate the Turkish solution here
>(ghopDu'Daj lungaSghach ralghachchajvo')

Erk.  That really doesn't sound good to me yet.  Maybe I can think of
something better. 

>}vaj wuqqa' joH'a' 'ej QeH 'e' mev 'ej maHeghbe' 'e' Sov 'Iv?>>

>wuqqa' for reconsider? Somehow I doubt you should get away with this. wuqHa',
>at least: undo your decision.

Hmm?  I though wuqqa' works very well for reconsider.  I'm not sure that
wuqHa' isn't better, but I'm also not sure it isn't worse.

>}<<SuH, joH'a', wo'wIjDaq jIHtaHvIS vuDwIj 'oH Dochvam'e', qar'a'?

>vuDvam vIghaj would do nicely.

I guess, but I don't see that what I have is bad.

>}'ej Dochvammo' tarSISDaq jIHaw'pu';

>vuDvammo', I'd suggest; make the referent tracking unambiguous.

Yes.  Good point.

>}pa' juHHom cher, 'ej QIbDaq bIngDajDaq ba'.

>In its shadow, in it's underneath? If that's what you meant, ok, though
>QibDa*j* bIngDaq is what I would have said...

Wouldn't you have said "QIbDajDaq bIngDajDaq"?  I'm putting two locatives
on it: in the shadow, in its underneath.  (in the shadow that was
underneath it would probably be hideous.)

>}'ach nabmo' joH'a' tlha'bogh jaj jajlo' naH Sor HIv ghargh,

>I doubt as long an expression as "tlha'bogh jaj jajlo'" would still be
>adverbial; I'd just go "qaSDI' blah...", and just "tlha'bogh jajlo'"

Hmmm.  Yeah, you're probably right.

>}vaj tujDI' Hov, nabmo' joH'a' qaS 'et[?????] SuS,

>To distinguish the Sun from the Stars, I'd say Hov'a'.

Oooh, I like that! Thanks!

>}'ej Hegh neH, 'ej ja' <<HeghwIj QaQ law' yInwIj QaQ puS.>>

>To disambiguate the two senses of neH, I'd say neHbej. The old evidential-as-
>-grammatical-categoriser trick.

Probably not a bad idea, though I have to get used to seeing "-bej"'s that
don't really add much meaning around (those called "pleonastic"?  I seem to
remember the term...).

>}'ej yonavaD ja' joH'a' <<QaQ'a' naH Sormo' bIQeHghach?>>

>I still don't think Prepositional phrases can qualify noun phrases.

Well, then how else can I get the clause into the subject place of QaQ?
Can you consider the -ghach as nominalizing the whole sentence {naH Sormo'
bIQeH}?  That was the intent.

>}<<naH Sormo' bIvumpu'be'bogh 'ej Dapeppu'be'bogh 'ej
>}wa' ram SaHbogh 'ej wa' ram lojbogh pung Daghaj SoH,
>}'ej nInveymo' veng tInmo', nIHchajmo' poSchajmo' mISbogh cha' netlh [???]
>}nuv Ha'DIbaHmey law' je ngaSbogh 'oH pung vIghajbe''a'?>>

>Yuck. If people cannot parse it in reading it, don't use it. Rhetorical
>questions we don't know will work in Hol, two levels of nesting of -mo'...
>uh-uh. May I suggest:

>bIvumpu'be'moHbogh 'ej Dapeppu'be'moHbogh [Que'?] 'ej wa' ram SaHbogh 'ej
>wa' ram lojbogh naH Sor'e' Davupba' SoH.
>*nInvey* veng tIn'e', nIHchaj poSchaj je ghovbe'bogh wa' bIp cha' netlh nuv 
>latlhpu' je Ha'DibaH law' je ngaSbogh veng'e' vIvupbe'law'!

OOooh!  You found a verb "vup"!  Thank you!  It's not perfect for "have
mercy", but it beats "pung ghaj".  I don't see the need for either of the
"-moH"'s on the first two verbs.  If you're going to stick with the
"vupbe'", even with "-law'", I'd still have to put on the "-'a'", otherwise
it seems too much of a statement.

>---

>It was a good translation, Mark, and I apologise if I came across too brusque
>in my response; I'm still fuming...

Thanks for the response, Nick, I really need the ideas.  I'll have to get
siufficiently back into all this stuff to incorporate all the changes we've
discussed at some point.  I also should talk to Wilson soon about some
farther-reaching details of the translation.

~mark



Back to archive top level