tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 17 07:20:25 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Ha'DIbaH chalHa'DIbaH je

>From: "Matthew Whiteacre" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 08:53:08 CDT

Another Aesop?  Cool...

>juHvo' Soj nIH chalHa'DIbaH

"chalHa'DIbaH"... presumably bird.  Works for me, absent anything better.

>SorDaq puvpu' chalHa'DIbaH
>jIvalchugh Sojvetlh vISop jatlhegh chalHa'DIbaH leghpu'bogh Ha'DIbaH

Should be "jatlh'egh".  Oh, clever use of "leghpu'bogh" to mean "after the
animal had seen it."  "-DI'" would work too, but the "-pu'" can be more
specific.  It basically means "an animal who had seen it" (note "had seen",
because of the perfective aspect).  I was a little confused at first since
I thought the bird was the one thinking; maybe one of those Krankor "-'e'"s
to disambiguate would be in order.

>poHvaD Qubpu'

I've been thinking about this for a while.  I've changed my initial
opinion, and now I think that you really *can't* extend suffixes like
"-Daq" and "-vaD" to time.  We have other ways to indicate things happening
during time, and a canonical example of how to use them: qaStaHvIS wa' ram
loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD.  Note that it does *not* say "wa' ramDaq"
for "in one night", but rather "qaStaHvIS wa' ram."  I'd think that should
be extended; it's a lot more logical, and using "in" and "for" for time
periods need not make sense in other languages.

>chalHa'DIbaHDaq nuQneH jatlhneS Ha'DIbaH
>DaHjaj bI'IHneS

Now here's a question: how is "-neS" working?  By the way I understand it,
extrapolating from usages in PK and such, I believe that "-neS" indicates
respect for the *audience*, regardless of the sentence.  By that reading,
the first sentence indicates the storyteller's respect for me (thanks!),
and the second the animal's respect for the bird (what you meant).  That's
just me, and there isn't ironclad evidence for it, but it seems to work
with what we've seen.  (Oh, and you misspelled "nuqneH")

>monglI' 'IH law' Hoch 'IH puS
>tellI' HoS law' Hoch Hos puS
>ghogh ghajchugh Hoch bel 'e' DIch jIH
>Dochmeyvam jatlh Ha'DIbaH
>'IHpu' ghogh 'e' naDmo' cha'bej chalHa'DIbaH

This last line is confusing.  I understand it from context, but not really
from any other way.

>nujlI' poSmoHDI' ghorDaq chaghpu' Soj
>nom Soj tlhap Ha'DIbaH
>'IHghachlI' vIjatlhlaw' 'ach yab vIjatlhbe'bej

Nice, though.  I understood most of this perfectly.  I especially like the
last line.

~mark

Back to archive top level