tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 23 20:56:46 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

KBTP: Psalm 23

>From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 18:47:37 EDT

>Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Mark E. Shoulson jay'?

>Quite acceptable, Mark; the only thing I'd remark on is your lack of
>punctuation. We don't know whether

>=Hegh QIb ngechDaq jIlengtaHvIS je

>modifies the phrase it prcedes, or the phrase it follows. Since you've used
>punctuation in Jonah (albeit erratically), I don't see why you shouldn't
>use it here.

Probably because it was such a short piece; I dunno.

>=DavID SoQ:

>not "bom"?

I'm not sure why I chose SoQ; neither actually seems better than the other,
though I probably should prefer "bom".  That's a term we'll have to tackle
in KBTP...

>=QorghwI'wI' ghaH joH'a''e'

>Hm. Yes. You could also say "Da" for "ghaH", but I wouldn't want to encourage
>you in an E-prime crusade! ;) (Even though I've just changed all my (Okrand
>sanctioned!) -Daq XNoun ghaH to -Daq XNoun tu'lu'...)

You mean Okrand-sanctioned "-Daq ghaH XNoun", right?  "tu'lu'" does seem
better in many cases, but I wouldn't fight for it everywhere.  No, "Da"
doesn't work for me in this case; "ghaH" is just what's wanted, nothing
else.  I'm not an E-prime fanatic, even in Klingon.  I just like to
consider other options to "to be"... and then use it if it seems best.

>=For "evil" I avoided "?mIghghach" and went with
>="mIghwI'" for "evil thing(s)".  

>Mpf. Don't do this too cavalierly. I've done it at times too, but -wI' with
>adjectives applicable to persons is more likely to denote persons than
>things. 

Maybe.  But we really have no evidence that "-wI'" has any affinity for
people over things, or vice-versa.  I suppose ghu' mIgh is probably best.

>=Coined
>="SopDaq" for table, on the model of "QongDaq" which we have for "bed".  I
>=know it's a verb-noun compound, but it works for me.  I probably shouldn't
>=tho.

>When I came to need a table, I didn't. I went with the altogether safer
>SojDaq. Just because Okrand can violate his canon whenever he feels like
>it... nah, I'm not getting into that again.

SojDaq?  Hmmm... I think I like.

>="You freshen my head with oil".  Ouch.  No word for "oil", etc... 

>I've used bIQ Huj: sticky water. (I feel no hesitation in generalising bIQ
>to denote "liquid". Then again, taS may be better for that job.) The 
>healthifying stuff seems a bit of a stretch to me.

It seemed to carry the idiom better.  Anointing with oil is both a symbol
of majesty and more originally (and as used here) a symbol of comfort and
luxury (imagine how nice it feels under the hot middle-eastern sun!)  So I
was translating that idiom of "putting suntan lotion on" more than the
details of oil.  In Lojban, an ".oinairo'o" would go well here...

>=I'm rather proud of "ngaSqu' HIvje'wIj", though I'm not sure why.  It's not
>=too literal, but it *sounds* good for some reason.  Does *anyone* else
>=think it makes any sense whatsoever for "my cup runneth over"?

>I interpreted it as "my cup is full to the brim". -qu' *is* ambiguous between
>"too" and "very"; then again, Greek doesn't distinguish between the two
>(although it does have a word for overflow). So it only makes sense how
>you meant it in hindsight, but I think it's acceptable.

Thanks.  The amibiguity between "too" and "very" is something I can live
with, in general.  If we can count on "yapqu'" as a verb for "to be too
much", we'll have it made.  I'm not 100% sure of the Hebrew; it's a rare
word.  I assume it means "runneth over" because that's how everyone else
translates it.  For now I'm sticking with ngaSqu'...

>=Again. QaQwI' for "good(ness)", or rather "good thing(s)".  

>No. A QaQwI' would be someone like an angel in my book. I'd have said "ghu'
>QaQ"

Yeah, I think you're right.

>majQa'. I'll do your Jonah when I next get time.

Thanks!  That one needs looking at more, and has gotten more attention from
me.

~mark

Back to archive top level