tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 30 23:03:03 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KBTP: Psalm 117
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: KBTP: Psalm 117
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 10:59:53 -0400
- In-Reply-To: Joel Anderson's message of Thu, 30 Jun 1994 10:51:57 -0500 <[email protected]>
>From: Joel Anderson <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 10:51:57 -0500
>Psalm 117
>====================
>tlHIngan-Hol
> joH'a' penaD Hoch
> pequvmoH ghotpu' 'u'
> numuSHa'qu'mo'
> 'ej vItDaj 'oH reH 'e'
> joH'a' penaD !
Heh. Classic shortest chapter in the Bible. Way to go!
>DIvI'-Hol
> O praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people.
> For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of
> the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.
>tlHIngan-Hol // Federation Standard
> joH'a' penaD Hoch
> N: joH'a': big lord.
> V: penaD: you(imp:pl) praise, commend, approve.
This is a problem here, I'm afraid. It;s a tricky one to remember. The
only time when the imperative to singular subjects and to plural subjects
differ is when there is no object. That is, "yIQong" is "Sleep!" commanded
to one person, and "peQong" is to more than one. However, "yISop" is "Eat
it!" to one *or* more people (or possible just "Eat!" (no subject) to only
one person). So the "pe-" here should be "yI-".
> N: Hoch: everyone, all, everything.
Good, but did you lose the "nations" on purpose? That wasn't added by the
translator to English; it's in the Hebrew. Maybe "Seghmey Hoch"?
> pequvmoH ghotpu' 'u'
> V: pequvmoH: you(imp:pl) honor.
Should be "yI-" here too, since it's "praise *him*".
> N: ghotpu': (pl) person.
> N: 'u': universe.
"People of the universe"? Interesting. The Hebrew (and the English) uses
the same "all" construction, with just a synonymn for "nations" ('umim
instead of goyim). If you want to parallel, maybe you could try "qorDu'mey
Hoch" (or qorDu''a'mey).
> numuSHa'qu'mo'
>V: numuSHa'qu'mo': he/she/it/they-us because of really not hate, detest.
Yeah, this is a good translation of what you have. The Hebrew is strange
there, and there are several interpretations. The one you have is a
perfectly valid one, but out of curiosity I wonder if I could cast another
one well, especially since it's almost Klingon in imagery. See, the phrase
seems to be saying "For his kindness has overcome us" (in the sense of
defeating even). I suppose one could do something with -ghach, though I'd
probably wind up with something using "'ej" instead.... which really would
just wind up being what you have only wordier. Whatever.
> 'ej vItDaj 'oH reH 'e'
> N: 'ej: and.
> N: vItDaj: his/her truth.
> N: 'oH: it.
> N: reH: always.
> V: 'e': that.
Hmm.. Oh, I see, "and it is his truth. That always is"? It makes more
sense than when I first read it, but still not much. What is his truth?
All you have is "it". And while "'e'" is a pronoun, using it as a verb
leaves me cold, especially since from what we know of "'e'", it's used as
the *object* of another verb... and that's not here either. Bear in mind:
all these words are chuvmey, leftovers. You can't necessarily generalize
from some of them to others of them; their rules are pretty much specific
in each case.
> joH'a' penaD !
> N: joH'a': big lord.
> V: penaD: you(imp:pl) praise, commend, approve.
yI- again. But you knew that.
~mark