tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 02 23:04:08 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re: KLBC "Don't let the bastards get you down"
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Re: KLBC "Don't let the bastards get you down"
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:02:54 -0500
Thank you so much for your suggestions, here are some replies;
>From William H. Martin
>Sounds good, though I might favor {Doy'} over {'IQ} >just because I believe
the original meant "wear you >down" instead of
>"get you down". Non illegitimi carborundum - or >somesuch.
Yes Doy' is closer to the feel of the command.
>From ~mark
>Qop. You like it. :) (OK, maybe it's a little >metaphorical).
Better still!
>From SuStel
>Or how about {nItaHHa'moH taHqeqpu' 'e' yIchaw'Qo'}? I >think it expresses
>the concept nicely. I also like ~mark's suggestion of >{Qop}.
I like the way taH (with different meanings) is repeted.
>Also from William H. Martin list
>Hmmm. I guess it does need an {'e'} between the two >main
>verbs, regardless of which first main verb one >chooses...
My feeling is the the verb "chaw'" allow was referring to the taHqeqpu' and I
wrote don't allow them, making 'e' inappropriate.
>From Alan Anderson
>After a lot of agreements and suggestions for different >translations of
"get you down", *finally* someone noticed that you need >to use {'e'} as
>the object of the second verb! You're not talking >about refusing to
>permit the people; you're talking about refusing to >permit an action.
>That action, in the form of a complete sentence, is the >object of the
>verb {chaw'}, and it is represented by the pronoun >{'e'}. See TKD section
>6.2.5 for a discussion of sentences as objects.
>{nI[whatever] taHqeqpu' 'e' yIchaw'Qo'}
See above and add, allowing a thing (even if that thing is an action) doesn't
sound right. We allow sentient beings, we make objects do things. If you
want to use 'e' then the sentence should be something like <nIQop taHqeqpu'
'e' yImev>, but that's getting away from the spirit of the original. Another
way to translate it and get more of the sense of the action would be <nIQop
taHqeqpu' yIchaw'Qo'egh>
>HIjangnIS
>You can say either {HIjang} or {chojangnIS} to indicate >you need a reply,
>but {HI-} and {-nIS} don't coexist well. You've said >something close to
>"Hey, you -- need to answer me!" You ordered me to >have to do something
>instead of either ordering me to do it or telling me I >have to do it.
The use of <-nIS> was a compromise; it is the closest to the English,
"must", "have to" or "gotta". What I was trying to say in a nice, short
sign-off was "You gotta tell me!"
Satlho'
tIm