tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 20 06:10:49 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: *maqbet* tidbit
Guido#1:
> But watch out, since this is no good for the case with the witches, in which
> the idea of "we" is more important than how many there are. In that case, I
> think the {maH} would definitely have to stay. It's all a matter of thinking,
> which idea is more important: the number or the pronoun?
I think in this case, the "we" can be dropped, since the verb already contains
that information. Then, translating into tera'ngan Hol, the sentence might
have some sort of confusion. Is "ghorgh maghomqa' wej" "When shall the three
meet again?" or "When shall we meet again?" I think the terrans did both, i.e.
"we three." I think the revision should be "ghorgh maghomqa' wej"
> Also, while I'm at it, I'd like to critici--, I mean, discuss the neologism
> used for "witch". It was {wIch be'}. Well, witches may be mythological to
> most modern Westerners, but certainly not to the people of 17th century
> England. SeQpIr would never have called them {wIch be'pu'}. The idea that
> {wIch} and "witch" are, well, the way they are, is in and of itself cute, but
> it's probably not really the way to go. It's almost like an inside joke to us
> Klingonists. And it really wouldn't accomplish that much among the general
> public (we *are* planning to publish the works of the KSRP, right?)
I agree that my working around witch wasn't that good. While rethinking,
I happened across "veqlargh." What if the terrans saw "veqlarghHom?" A
small, less powerful demon or agent of the devil. Lacking anything more
descriptive for demons, and since witches were considered agents of evil,
perhaps a small demon could be considered a witch.? If that doesn't work,
what about "be' mIch?" I would prefer using "veqlarghHom (be'?)" because it
just seems more descriptive, but it might not work for a translation.
>
> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
>
>
Peter Garza
[email protected]