tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 01 05:02:04 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 16:58:55 -0400
- In-Reply-To: Joel Anderson's message of Fri, 1 Jul 1994 14:22:00 -0500 <[email protected]>
>From: Joel Anderson <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 14:22:00 -0500
>Mark E. Shoulson writes:
> >
> > >From: Joel Anderson <[email protected]>
> > >Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 10:51:57 -0500
> >
> > 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)
Section 4.1.2, in the table of imperative prefixes, and the following
paragraph:
Not that, with one exception, the indentical prefix is used regardless of
whether the command is being given to one or more than one person. The
single exception is when a command is given but there is no object.
> > > 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'...]
The epithet quality was nonexistent in Biblical times (there's a discussion
on the HEBLANG list about this). "Goy" meant/means "nation" as in tribe or
people (singular people). It was only later that it became specifically
gentile nations (note too that "gentile" comes from the root meaning simply
"people" as well), and by metonymy a member of one of theose peoples.
"Segh" works for "goy", yes... as does "wo'" or my coining "qorDu''a'"
(which I may replace by Segh in Jonah). Terseness is okay, I guess, and it
doesn't change the meaning much here (tho it makes it harder to try to
preserve the parallel sentence structure). Then again, I don't know if you
gain much by it.
> > 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....)
That's an obvious joke on Okrand's part. There probably isn't a good
translation of "Hesed" into Klingon or English; one attempt is about as
good as another.
> > > '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...
*chuckle* Aside from the "pe-" business, this is what I feel most strongly
needs to be changed! Oh well. I told you what I thought of it.
> qathlo'qu'!
~mark