tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 05 13:51:25 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: William Tell version 2
Hu'tegh! nuq ja' [email protected] jay'?
Ah, yes, Guido, you've waited for the pearls of my wisdom long enough ;) .
=ben law'qu' yIn vIlHem-tel
Myself, I'm not comfortable with Noun + Adj for a bare temporal; I'd have said
either just "ben", or qaStaHvIS ben law'. Which doesn't quite work, does it.
Hm. Ok, ben law' it is.
=qaStaHvIS wa'SaD DIS lamDaq Quch ngoHchugh vaj gheghlaHtaHqu'
It's not how I'd have said it, but it does make sense. I'd still prefer
something like "wej HabchoH".
=reH QuchDaj rotlh law' lam rotlh puS
*chuckle*
=HI' nov vIvuvQo' jItlhabmo'
=puqloDwI' je>
"je" has to join two nouns, or stand after a verb, so "matlhabmo' jIH
puqloDwI' je", or "jItlhabmo'. tlhab je puqloDwI'"
=jang HI' <gharwI' jat nuch tIq>
William Tell has just spoken *diplomatically*?!
=vavwI' jagh vIDaQo' jay'>
=jang HI' <vaj Sor'e' yIDa>
*rolls on floor laughing*
=ja' HI' <mIw vIQIj
I'd have said vIDel, but no difference.
=pu'beH tlhe'moH 'ej HI' tlhejbogh wej negh'e' bach
wej mang, surely. negh would mean "soldiers" as in a mass noun, as in "cannon
fodder". At least, that's my impression.
=HI' qImHa' 'ej puqloD qet
puqloDDaq qet is safer.
=puqloD jatlh <vavoywI' pIch Daghajbe'ba' 'e' vItlhoj
jatlh puqloD!
=bortaS neHpu'bogh Suq rIntaHmo' nom juHqo'DajDaq cheghmeH Duj tIj
Is that Suq rIntaH the double verb construction? Risky to place it in
subordination...
=lop 'e' tIvbe' vIlHem-tel puqloD quvmoHbe'lu'mo'
It's a somewhat tragic ending, but somehow, I think it could be more tragic.
Then again, I'm evaluating this by human standards.
That was a blockbuster, Guido! Excellent intelligible style, quite sound
grammar, and the content was good too. Congrats!
--
Nick.