tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 27 13:40:44 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KBTP: Comments on John 8:1-11
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: KBTP: Comments on John 8:1-11
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 02:37:08 EST
Whoa. GlenProechel's style is majorly out of sync with what I'm used to
seeing on the Net. There's nothing particularly wrong with it; it's just
different. With that in mind, I hope my criticisms aren't too unreasonable. I
may be biased towards a certain style.
>The instrumental 'with' as in
>"He wrote WITH his finger' beomes nItlhDaj lo'taHvIS i.e. 'while using
>his finger'. Similarly, 'to stone such women.' becomes 'to kill evil
>women while we throw stones.'
I dunno. I think instrumentals look a whole lot better with a {-meH} clause.
This has been an issue since the time I first joined this list. I remember
Jacques Guy (whatever happened to him?!) was contemplating instrumentals and
I suggested {Duj vIbachmeH pu' vIlo'} for "I shoot the ship with a phaser."
This was a surprise to them because I had been posting for about a week, but
it still didn't have the prestigious weight it would have had, if Krankor had
suggested it. Most people seem to prefer my {-meH lo'} construction over the
{lo'taHvIS} one, once it is pointed out to them. It suggests a more specific
relationship between the verbs. Imesho.
> Doch Hat ta'ta'bogh be' tu'lu'pu'. be'vam luqempu' ghItlhwI'pu'
>Pharisaeuspu' je 'ej ghom botlhDaq be'vam luQammoHta'.
You could just say {HeSbogh be'} instead of {Doch Hat ta'ta'bogh be'} because
a specific crime is not mentioned yet.
> "ghojmoHwI'," luja'pu'. "nga'chuqtaHvIS be'vam loD Huj je
>wItu'pu' 'ej loDnalDaj ghaHbe' loD'e'. chutDaq naghmey wIlo'-
>taHvIS be'pu' mIgh wIHoH nura' Moses. DaH nuq Daja'?" lutobmeH >Dochvam
>lutlhobpu', lupummeH vay' lunejtaHmo'.
The first sentence is better as, {nga'chuq be'vam loD Huj je 'e' wItu'}. Kill
the subordination and make it into a double sentence construction using
{'e'}. For the second sentence, I'd've done it as: {*Moses* chutmo' be' mIgh
wIHoHmeH nagh DIlo'}
Too bad Klingon doesn't have any way to distinguish habitual or obligatory or
factual actions from a normal indicative action. "We <are supposed to> kill
evil women with stones," and "We kill evil women with stones," look the same
in Klingon. There are ways around this, tho, like some use {-nIS} or {-lI'}.
I wish there were better ways of getting mailing list discussions to
non-InterNetters. The "RoundTable" section in HolQeD is a good start, but
there's so much information that the 'outsiders' don't know about. Is someone
keeping some sort of record of all the rich stuff we come up with? Maybe we
could get EliasIsrael to publish the mailing list records in a form available
to the 400-some KLI members without E-mail accounts.
***jabbI'ID pItlh***
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos