tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 19 09:49:41 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Call for comments: Mark translation

>From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 20:31:49 +1100 (GMT)

>No, NOT Mark Shoulson ;) I started on the Gospel according to Mark, and am
>calling for comments from any and every about the following:

I appreciate the clarification :).

>"This is the gospel about JC, the son of God" (The original doesn't have the
>*this is*, but it's relevant to my question: )

>joH'a' puqloD, _yeSuS HIrIStoS_ buSbogh Qum QuQ'e ghaHbej

>I have an apposition here, but if Hod Qanqor used it, he won't critique it ;)
>I inferred the noun Qum from its usage in QumpIn, and TKD 3.2.1. QuQ is
>a noun, and QuQ an adjective, and the whole thing impossible to parse without
>knowing that. It's grammatical --- but is it good Klingon? And does anyone
>have alternative suggestions?

I avoided the apposition in the analogous verse in Jonah, going instead for
"'amItay puqloD ghaHbogh yona'e'", though I'm not sure why, since I used
the apposition elsewhere.  I'm also confused about "QuQ"; is this is typo?
I have to agree with Krankor that {Dochvam} is much better than {'oH} (not
ghaH) for "this [is]".

You've given me something to work on, though... I probably rejected {Qum}
in my trabslation because I, like Krankor, would have used {Qumghach}, and
too many "-ghach"s on simple verbs bother me.  But I think I will change my
first verse to "'amItay puqloD ghaHbogh yona'e' Qum joH'a' 'ej ja'"; much
better.  More on my alterations in another letter.

>Btw, I'm going to take to using ghaHbej for the verbal ghaH; PK implies that
>type 6 suffixes are as ubiquitous as honorifics in Japanese.

Well, I don't know that it fit's *my* style, but who cares about that?  PK
would seem to imply that, though.

>"prophet" --- leSSovghot

>"messenger" --- Qummang

Both look cool...

~mark

Back to archive top level