tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 10 04:02:37 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Translated Phrase
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Translated Phrase
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 15:57:25 -0400
- In-Reply-To: "William H. Martin"'s message of Wed, 10 Aug 94 13:07:52 EDT <[email protected]>
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 13:07:52 EDT
>According to Niall Hosking:
>>
>> I've been having fun working on a translation of the phrase:
>>
>> 'Die with your teeth in your enemy's throat and your name on his
>> tongue.'...
>>
>> biHeghvIS jaghlI' HughDaq Ho'Du'lIj yIlan 'ej jatDajDaq ponglij yIlan
>jaghlI' Hugh DachoptaHvIS 'ej ponglIj pongtaHvIS ghach
>batlh bIHeghjaj!
>"While you bite your enemy's throat and while he calls your
>name, may you die with honor!"
>I stretched things a little to use {'ej} as a conjunction
>between two DEPENDENT clauses. I may be wrong on that one, but
>leaving it out felt even worse. I'd be open to other opinions
>on this. Holtej? ~mark? Krankor? trI'Qal? Guido#1? Nick? (I'm
>sure I'll catch flaq for leaving somebody out...)
Works fine for me. My understanding on this point is that "'ej" joins
sentence, well, actually, clauses, and clauses are just finite verbs with
some optional nouns attached. If the clauses happen to be subordinate,
hey, what else you gonna use to conjoin them? "je"? Nah. In fact, I'd
even say that *if* you an have more than one adjectival verb on a noun
(e.g. big red book) and *if* you can conjoin them (both if's that are
unsupported and I don't claim them, though I do sort of support the first
but not necessarily the second), the conjunction would be "'ej". OK,
There's really no evidence for these, and perhaps no conjunction should be
allowed, but I personally don't mind the "'ej" as you have it here.
>charghwI'
~mark