tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 01 03:25:10 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KBTP: Psalm 117
Mark E. Shoulson writes:
>
> >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!
Wow - I post and no flame... whew. Now I think I'll do the
shortest verse.... (SaQ ISuS)
> > 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-".
toH! Where is that in TKD? Not that I doubt you.... I usually try
to preserve the plural/singular (as does the KJV)
> > 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"?
Sort of. I like it being terse - does goyim == Seghmey? What about
wo'mey? [maybe I was avoiding the epithet quality of 'goy'...]
> >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
(d'Armond's parser for *THAT* - I use it to vet things I write)
> 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.
Yeah - I used muSHa' under the influence of the English version that
I've memorized that uses 'love' for 'hesed'. I think RSV usually uses
'covenant faithfullness' - I wonder...could have used yuDHa' honesty
for that (curious how positive Human virtues are cast as negative
thIngan ones....)
> > '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....
hmmm..... I may leave that for now...
qathlo'qu'!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] | Apertus Technologies | GEnie:j.anderson71
jineHbe'! DevwI'wI' ghaH joH'a''e'!* The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want