tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 17 13:01:39 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Ha'DIbaH chalHa'DIbaH je

>>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.

I agree with your conclusion but not your route to get there.  The real
problem here is abuse of -vaD, of a type I've probably been guilty of
myself from time to time.

-vaD does >"*NOT*"< mean "for".  It is not an equivalent to an English
word, it designates a specific concept, and that concept happens to be
*one* of the meanings of the English "for".  The meaning is "for the
benefit of".  Nothing is happening for the benefit of the period of time
here.  It is not an issue of metaphoric extension of physical
relationships to time, it's a matter of just the wrong meaning being
applied to -vaD.  But my conclusion from this is the same:  qaStaHvIS 
would be better, or something else akin.


>>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")

I think that the evidence is pretty strong, actually, particularly with
what we get on the tape.  I completely agree with your interpretation.
The -neS here conveys honor to the reader, which is almost certainly not
what was intended.

>>monglI' 'IH law' Hoch 'IH puS
>>tellI' HoS law' Hoch Hos puS

These body parts are not intelligent language users.  monglIj and tellIj.

>>ghogh ghajchugh Hoch bel 'e' DIch jIH

This does not parse in any reasonable way.  The presence of the 'e' means
that either DIch or jIH needs to be a verb, and DIch certainly isn't.  So
this translates as:

"I am certainty if he has a voice it pleases everyone."  

or perhaps

"I am certainty that if every pleasure has a voice."

In short, something is awry here.


>>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.

It certainly is confusing.  It translates as:

"The bird certainly shows because it praises that the voice was beautiful."

I don't understand it at all.

>nujlI' poSmoHDI' ghorDaq chaghpu' Soj

This seems to be erroneous.  First off, it would be nujlIj, not nujlI'.
But moreover, this appears to be part of the narrative, not a quote from
the Ha'DIbaH, so I can only assume it was supposed to be nujDaj.

>>nom Soj tlhap Ha'DIbaH
>>'IHghachlI' vIjatlhlaw' 'ach yab vIjatlhbe'bej

'IHghachlI' is also not a sentient language-user.  'IHghachlIj.

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

jIH je.


>~mark

        --Krankor

Back to archive top level