tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 20 20:29:47 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Big translation
On Sun, 19 Nov 1995, Matt Treyvaud, P.A. wrote:
> > > 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.
This works fine.
> > > 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 was following your English translation which was
"...if you merely try 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...>
jIQochbe'.
> taghqIj