tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 31 21:41:21 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: 'ovpu'ghach

On Jan 31,  6:50pm, Richard Kennaway wrote [and charghwI' replies]:
> Subject: 'ovpu'ghach
... Nice story. I do find it a little confusing. (So what is new?) I offer my
suggestions for clarification.

> 'ov cha' SuvwI' Dun'
> 'etlhmo' SuvwI' wa'DIch qIp SuvwI' cha'DIch

"The second soldier hits the first soldier because of the sword." ?
Is this one of the many attempts to get around the absence of the word
"with"? In this case, are you trying to say "using his sword"? Perhaps the
following would do?
        'etlhmeyDaj lo'taHvIS SuvwI' wa'DIch qIp SuvwI' cha'DIch
"While using their swords, the second fighter hits the first fighter."

> QuchDajDaq ghor'eghqu' 'etlh 'ej rIQta'be'

     This does make sense, but it could have been a little less ambiguous if
you added a pronoun:
          QuchDajDaq ghorqu''egh 'etlh 'ej rIQbe' ghaH

     Now, you have the assurance that the being that was not injured was
capable of language. This points more to the fighter than to the sword. (Yes,
we know the sword broke, but this kind of story is weird enough that if you
were making a different point, the sword could have broken and not been
injured...) You can assume that if the fighter was uninjured, so was the
forehead. I also moved the {-qu} because, as a rover, it tends to modify the
root or affix it follows, and intensifying {-'egh} doesn't make a lot of
sense to me.

     I also got rid of the {-ta'} on {rIQta'be'} because it is confusing. In
the first place, you don't need the perfective because the breaking of the
sword and the not being injured happened at the same time. You say very
little to imply that the soldier was complete in his state of being not
injured at the instant that the sword broke. We kinda knew that. It is the
moment of the breakage that would be most interesting. Your sentence means
less "The sword broke itself at his forehead and he was not injured." That is
the English idiomatic way I would translate it if the verb "to injure" were
NOT perfective. Your sentence reads to me more like, "The sword broke itself
at his forehead and he (or it) had not been intentionally injured."

     Secondly, I doubt that negating intent is useful here, and rovers modify
what they follow. In this case you are either saying that the process of
injury was either incomplete or unintentional, since you are negating the
suffix that says it is complete and intentional. If you drop {-ta'} it
becomes much easier to understand.

> SuvwI' cha'DIch qIp SuvwI' wa'DIch
> SuvwI' cha'DIch 'elta' 'etlh 'ach rIQta'be'chu'qu'

     I think you got a little carried away with suffixes on the last word
there. {-chu'} is already perfect. "Very perfect" is laying it on a little
thick. If {-chu'} is to have meaning, it can't be intensified in so casual a
setting. Something would have to be waaaaaay impressive to be {-chu'qu'}.
Essentially, you are saying that the extreme of {-chu'} fails to carry the
meaning. I don't think we need that here.

     Again, I have a rough time with {-ta'be'} in this setting. I suggest
{rIQbe'chu'}. It says everything you said without the confusion or
strangeness.

     This is similar to my problem with overuse of {quv}, {batlh} and {-nES}.
These words are supposed to MEAN something. If you honorably walk around
honorably apologising every honorable time any honorable someone honorably
stubs their honorable toe, then the word becomes meaningless.

> yay Suq SuvwI' cha'DIch

     Bully for him!

charghwI'

Back to archive top level