tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 12 22:48:17 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

REPOST: Re: KBTP: Mark's Jonah

>>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".

Why not just say explicitly tIjghachDaj DIl?

>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?

I like.

>>}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.

I misparsed your text, because I couldn't tell which of the two clauses
depended on the other. You may want to consider just plain killing off
the -mo' from the main clause; the confusion isn't worth it.

>>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. 

let me know when you do, but I doubt there's much out there...

>>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.

wuqqa' to me would mean decide the same thing again (in Lojban terms:
di'a jdice).

>>}'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.

Sounds like a job for Captain Krankor, whom you should ask thereon, but no,
I can't see how -ghach can be taken as nominalising a whole sentence, with
what we know of Klingon syntax, and no, I don't see how you can get that
Prepositional phrase into the noun phrase except by dropping the preposition:
naH Sor biQeHghach.

This isn't an exact repost, but there was network problems here (I think),
and I lost the original. As well as 2 K of Shakespeare I'd just typed in.


Back to archive top level