tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 27 21:12:47 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KBTP: Jonah V2.0
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: KBTP: Jonah V2.0
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 10:10:57 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS's message of Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:15:04 EDT <[email protected]>
>From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
>Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:15:04 EDT
>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.
Heh. You didn't complain about it in the first version! But I think
you're right; we need an extra joH'a' there.
>='ej bIQ'a'Daq ral muD Dotlh,
>Ingenious!
Why thank you!
>='ej Duj ghorlu' net pIH.
>I see. I take ghor to be intransitive.
Bleah, no good answer to this one. I still like the "net".
>='ach Duj DopDaq ghIr *yona*,
>"But Jonah *was* gone down into the..."; ghIrpu'?
Come to think of it, yeah. It's in the Hebrew past tense, which was
originally perfective, and does logically and temporally precede the story
time. "-pu'" is in order.
>=<<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.
Welllllll, the discussion of how to handle words like "Elohim" is a point
of discussion between me and Kevin Wilson at the moment; I'm still not
sure. I tried to make "el/elohim" into "joH" everywhere this time 'round,
but perhaps, as Kevin suggests, there should be a distinction between
divine "elohim" (either big-G God or little-g gods) and non-divine, human
lords. Working on this one. Um, yeah, I guess "ta'" is not the best verb.
>=vaj SuD, 'ej *yona* le'moHlu'.
>le' *yona* would probably be adequate.
Maybe; this concept is tough to get across well inm the first place.
>='ej luja' <<nuq'e' Data'ta'?>> joH'a'vo' Haw' 'e' luSovmo', chaHvaD
>=[ngoDvetlh] ja'ta'mo'.
>I'd say Haw' ghaH for disambiguation.
Couldn't hurt. I tend to be a little radical with cutting out pronouns.
>='ach QaplaHbe', chaHvaD ralqu'choHtaH bIQ'a'.
>ralqu'choHtaHmo'?
Yeah; wonder why I didn't have that.
>==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.
OK, OK... but for me the punctuation is *purely* for my own benefit, I
don't consider it a comment of how Klingon should be punctuated.
>='ej qaStaHvIS wej jaj wej ram je bIQ'a' Ha'DIbaH burghDaq ghaHtaH *yona*.
>*yona*'e'
Wups, yah.
>==4=bIngDaq, bIQ'a' tIqDaq chongeHpu', 'ej muDech bIQtIq;
>"and the floods compassed me about"; why do you refer to a river?
Translation style. The Hebrew has "nahar", which I always heard used as
"river". Maybe it's being overly literal to use it as such here, or maybe
the KJV is overly metaphorical, but I don't think either is wrong.
>==7=HuD HeHDaq jIghIrpu', reH yav mo'Daq qama' jIH,
>is HeH right here? KJV says "bottom".
Well, the word talks about the "ends" of mountains, implying their bottoms.
HeH seems *damn* close to me. 'Sides, how would you say "bottom"? Maybe
bIng HeH? Not bad, but I think HeH alone is okay, 'specially with "ghIr"
to tell us the direction.
>='ach QIHvo' yInwIj DaSalmoH, joH'a' joHwI'.
>DaSalmoHta'?
Actually, no. The tense here switches back to the imperfect (reversed
future), and it makes sense, too. "I descended... and you raise me." I
see no problems with it.
>==9=pungchaj lughajHa' ramwI' ngeb toy'wI'pu',
>I don't like ghajHa'; a bit too obscure. lon, or lojmoH.
Me, I don't like the verse much to start with. But "lon" is *definitely*
the right word; wonder why I missed it.
>=vaj SopQo'ghach lura', 'ej Sut ghegh tuQ Hochchaj, potlhchaj ramwI'chaj je.
>SopQo' 'e' lura' will do.
I considered it; maybe I'll do it.
>==7='ej jach, 'ej ra'mo' ta' chuQunghotpu'Daj je *nInvey*Daq jatlhlu'
>The KJV implies there should be a "maq" in there.
The Hebrew has an ordinary "say", but the implication is maq. I should
probably replace the jatlhlu' with maqlu'.
>='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.
Hrrrrrr.... yeah. It's not literal, but makes more sense your way.
>='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.
Hrm. Have to consider that one.
>=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.
I guess "?vangghach" would be ideal, huh? But I won't go that path. I'm
tempted to try "to'", but I won't. I don't think I like QIch at all,
though. I'll try to find a better word for Doch. Maybe qech? Hmm..
>=<<SuH, joH'a', wo'wIjDaq jIHtaHvIS vuDwIj 'oH Dochvam'e', qar'a'?
>or: vuDvam vIghaj/ vIleH
Yeah, so you said last time. I still sorta like it this way. I'll think.
>=pungmo' ta'bogh 'ej qejHa'bogh 'ej QIt QeHchoHbogh 'ej mIghwI' qeltaHbogh
>=joH'e' SoH 'e' vISovmo'.
>qel is inappropriate here. pay is better.
Ah! That's a word I should have seen. Thanks.
>='ej mIghmo' toDmeH,
>Who is evil? Jonah? The KJV has "to deliver him from grief".
Good question! The Hebrew has "from his/its evil". Maybe Jonah's. Maybe
the sun's (the sun can be both masc or fem.; it seems to be feminine here
in a later verse in Jonah). Maybe God's. Maybe I'd do best to follow the
KJV's lead and try something else.
>=vaj nach *yona* HIv Hov'a', 'ej vulchoH.
>*yona* nach. (Another Hebraism)
Yeah.
>=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...
Who needs Okrandian sanction, we have Krankorian sanction! :) I'm tempted
to go the route of proof by extreme usefulness: it'd be so much easier if
we had it. It fits with my instincts; maybe I can find a canon example in
the tapes somewhere. I do like apposition.
>=I can see the confusion of the nesting of "-mo'"s in 1:10; does using
>="ngoDvetlh" help any?
>Yes.
Good.
>=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?
Kevin Wilson is suggesting transliteration YHWH to yaHwaH or something
instead of joH'a'. I thought that was a great idea in the Lojban
translations, but somehow I like it less in Klingon; don't ask me why.
Maybe we can draw a distinction of usage between joH and jaw?
>=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.
Yeah; I liked qelqa' better. I noticed that as I was posting it.
>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...
Thanks! I feel more comfortable with it too.
~mark