tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 26 11:16:47 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KBTP: Jonah V2.0



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

==1=joH'a' SoQ Hev *yona*, *'amItay* puqloD, 'ej ja'

No. This kind of deletion is too far out. "Jonah received God's lecture, and
said"? If you're to delete the subject of a conjunction clause, it has to be
coreferential with the other clause's subject --- not its object! "'ej ja'
joH'a'". That's the price you pay for reversing subject and object in the
antecedent clause.

='ej bIQ'a'Daq ral muD Dotlh,

Ingenious!

='ej Duj ghorlu' net pIH.

I see. I take ghor to be intransitive.

='ach Duj DopDaq ghIr *yona*,

"But Jonah *was* gone down into the..."; ghIrpu'?

=<<nuq Data', DumwI'?  SuH yIHu', joHlI'vaD yIjach.

joH'a'lI'vaD? And it'd be nuq/chay' Davang, since sleep is not a feat.

=vaj SuD, 'ej *yona* le'moHlu'.

le' *yona* would probably be adequate.

='ej luja' <<nuq'e' Data'ta'?>> joH'a'vo' Haw' 'e' luSovmo', chaHvaD
=[ngoDvetlh] ja'ta'mo'.

I'd say Haw' ghaH for disambiguation.

='ach QaplaHbe', chaHvaD ralqu'choHtaH bIQ'a'.

ralqu'choHtaHmo'?

==1=nabmo' joH'a' *yona* ghup bIQ'a' Ha'DIbaH tIn.

Put a comma after joH'a', else nab will be taken for a noun.

='ej qaStaHvIS wej jaj wej ram je bIQ'a' Ha'DIbaH burghDaq ghaHtaH *yona*.

*yona*'e'

==2='ej bIQ'a' Ha'DIbaH burghDaq ghaHtaHvIS, joH'a' joHDaj qoy' *yona*.

I don't know about these appositions...

==4=bIngDaq, bIQ'a' tIqDaq chongeHpu', 'ej muDech bIQtIq;

"and the floods compassed me about"; why do you refer to a river?

==7=HuD HeHDaq jIghIrpu', reH yav mo'Daq qama' jIH,

is HeH right here? KJV says "bottom".

='ach QIHvo' yInwIj DaSalmoH, joH'a' joHwI'.

DaSalmoHta'?

==9=pungchaj lughajHa' ramwI' ngeb toy'wI'pu',

I don't like ghajHa'; a bit too obscure. lon, or lojmoH.

=vaj SopQo'ghach lura', 'ej Sut ghegh tuQ Hochchaj, potlhchaj ramwI'chaj je.

SopQo' 'e' lura' will do.

==7='ej jach, 'ej ra'mo' ta' chuQunghotpu'Daj je *nInvey*Daq jatlhlu'

The KJV implies there should be a "maq" in there.

='ej HoSjaj joH'a'vaD jachDI',

Let them be strong as soon as they yell to the Lord? HoSjaj ghoghchaj, 
joH'a'vaD jachtaHvIS would be clearer.

='ej Hechaj mIghvo' ghopDu'chaj ralvo' je chegh'eghjaj.

The violence that is in their hands is not quite the same thing as their
violent hands. I'd say ghopDu'chaj Dotlh ralvo', if you won't say raltaHghach.

=vaj chaHvaD qabwI' ta'meH Doch jatlhpu'bogh qel, 'ej ta'be'.

The sentence makes sense only if the Doch is a QIch. If the Doch is a ta',
it's confused. I'd replace Doch with QIch, to give: He considered the word
he spoke in order to do evil to them.

=<<SuH, joH'a', wo'wIjDaq jIHtaHvIS vuDwIj 'oH Dochvam'e', qar'a'?

or: vuDvam vIghaj/ vIleH

=pungmo' ta'bogh 'ej qejHa'bogh 'ej QIt QeHchoHbogh 'ej mIghwI' qeltaHbogh
=joH'e' SoH 'e' vISovmo'.

qel is inappropriate here. pay is better.

='ej mIghmo' toDmeH,

Who is evil? Jonah? The KJV has "to deliver him from grief".

=vaj nach *yona* HIv Hov'a', 'ej vulchoH.

*yona* nach. (Another Hebraism)

=I finally lost that ugly "'amItay puqloD ghaHbogh yona'e'" in the first
=verse; I was already using apposition anyway...

Whereas I'm coming to actually use it increasingly. We have no Okrandian
sanction for it, after all...

=Broke up a lot of big relative clauses, or at least moved them around into
=other sentences to keep things a little less cluttered.  It isn't as
=literal anymore, but it's a whole lot more natural!

Yes. There's a lot of far-reaching relative clauses which I'm having to
break up too.

=I can see the confusion of the nesting of "-mo'"s in 1:10; does using
="ngoDvetlh" help any?

Yes.

=Tried to be more careful about "joH" for "god" or "Elohim" and "joH'a'" for
=YHWH; this is still a matter fo discussion in the KBTP and may be changed.

Oh! I see. I don't quite buy it; joH would be secular in my book. What of
joH'a' vs., oh, 'u'joH, or something?

=Got more creative with "the violence which is in their hands" and made it
="their violent hands".  

Like I said, turning from ones hands seems to me too strange...

=Changed "wuqqa'" to "qel"; this works better: maybe God will consider some
=more, i.e. give it some more thought.  Maybe "qelqa'"; that he'll resume
=considering?

qelqa', if anything. In the first instance where you used it, though, qel
will do.

What can I say? This *is* much more pleasant to read than the last one, and
only once or twice did I not quite know what was going on. I believe I'm
nowadays expressing my Mark much clearer too...

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   Nick Nicholas.  The Nonce and Future Linguist. University of Melbourne.
                        [email protected]
"Henry Squirrel was thirsty. He walked over to the river bank where his good
friend Bill Bird was sitting. Henry slipped and fell in the river. Gravity
drowned." --- TALE-SPIN Story Generator, James Meehan, Yale AI Lab, 1975.



Back to archive top level