tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 19 17:25:49 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Big translation
> > *** bIruSa ra'mey: ***
>
> Have you ever read any source which indicates the proper pronunciation of
> "Brujah"? I have heard it pronounced in different ways. Here in Texas,
> most kindred, er... folks, pronounce the 'j' as in Spanish.
Interesting. I myself have never heard it pronounced any way other than
a soft /j/, but I suppose it's no more likely than the spanish j. In
which case it would be <bIruHa>, right?
> > peqel'egh 'ej vaj 'anglu' vIt 'e' yIlegh.
>
> There is no syntactic connection between {'anglu'} & {vIt} here.
> Perhaps you can say: {vIt 'anglu'bogh yIlegh}.
I prefer <vIt 'anglu' 'e' yIlegh>. See the truth being revealed, rather
than just the revealed truth. Suggestion (and valid correction) noted,
however.
> > puqpu'wI' tlhIH, 'ach tuDa neH bonIDchugh, Supuj 'ej vaj SaQaw 'e' SuraDlu'.
>
> This would be a sentence-as-object construction:
> 'ach tuDa 'e' bonIDchugh neH, Supuj... (If you merely try to behave as me,
> you are weak...)
But if you put it this way, with the 'merely' referring to the <nID>
(try), doesn't that distort the meaning a little? With the <neH> after
the <nID> construction, it (to me at least) seems to be saying 'If you
merely -try- to behave as me, you are weak.', with an implied meaning of
'(But if you succeed, you are strong.)'. I want it to say 'If you try
merely to emulate me'.
I think it works better with the <neH> after <tuDa>, (and the <'e'> added
as you say), eg <'ach tuDa neH 'e' bonIDchugh...>
....
> But perhaps it would be more Klingon to simply say:
> HIDaQo'! (Don't emulate me!)
A little too Klingon methinks... there's no poetry there... :)
> ghot lucharghlu'ta'bogh 'Iw lungaSjaj 'aDDu'lIj,
>
> yoDtargh
lojmItlIj Sopbe'jaj wamwI'pu'
taghqIj
C /\ T
F /()\ C ...'avwI' 'av 'Iv?
C /____\ ...http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/~cthulhu
GANTA