tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 10:22:53 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: story, part 2
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: story, part 2
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 13:22:17 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:46:36 -0800 "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:39:16 -0800
> >From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>
...
> >> "HI'Ij," ra' vavchaj, "qeltaHvIS wa' DIS, SuqeqlaH.
> >
> >Ack! This is turning into a losing battle for me! People love to translate
> >"listen to me" as *{HI'Ij}! I honestly don't think {'Ij} is transitive;
> >otherwise Okrand (in TKW) would have translated "Listen to the voice of your
> >blood" as {'IwlIj ghogh yI'Ij}, but he didn't. He said {'IwlIj ghogh yIQoy.}
>
> It happens that I do believe 'Ij is transitive (or in Krankor's terms, that
> its object is the thing listened to), mostly because if it isn't I can't
> think of any way to use it in the sense of listening to something.
I listen to you sing:
bIbom. jI'Ij.
bIbomtaHvIS jI'Ij.
I listen to the baby cry:
chuSDI' ghu jI'Ij.
I listen to your powerful voice:
HoSghajmo' ghoghlIj jI'Ij.
I enjoy listening to opera:
jI'Ijchu'mo' *opera* vItIvqu'!
I listen to the sleeping guard:
QongtaH 'avwI' jI'Ijmo' 'e' vISov.
So, what is the problem?
> I
> suppose it might mean just "pay attetion to what's coming into your ears."
Yep.
> Okrand *said* why he used Qoy instead of 'Ij in TKW. Had he said "listen
> to the voice of your blood," the emphasis would be on the attempt. He
> tells us that using Qoy makes the statement stronger, that it's not enough
> to work at hearing what your blood is saying, that you must actually
> *succeed* and absorb its teachings.
But there are many potential castings he could have chosen had
he wanted to use the verb {'Ij}. {bomDI' 'IwlIj yI'Ij!} There,
'Ij is quite intransitive.
...
> >> tlhIHvaD jIjatlhDI', peQam, peqIm, petam 'ej HIbuS neH.
> >
> >Excellent way of saying "Stand at attention." The end is a little foggy,
> >though. {HIbuS neH} means "merely pay attention to me," which means that the
> >paying attention is trivial. I think you mean {jIH neH yIbuS} "focus on me
> >alone."
Or:
jIH HIbuS!
Besides, you are being somewhat redundant, since "think only
about" is part of the definition for {buS}. Meanwhile, {jIH neH
yIbuS} has a conflict in the person of the object. When I see
disagreement between the prefix and the pronoun, I expect there
to be an implicit indirect object. Something weird, like
"Concentrate only me to him!" It doesn't really work for me.
> Still has to be HIbuS, though, explicit pronoun or no.
Yep.
> >> tujatlhDI', {joHwI' qaH} ghap tIlo'nIS.{vav} vIlo'Qo'."
> >
> >{tujatlhDI'} means "when you speak me." {jatlh} as a verb of speaking does
> >not seem to use an object. Change this to {jIHvaD SujatlhDI'}.
It warms my heart to hear you say that...
> And do you mean "yIlo'Qo'"? Also, don't mix imperatives with -nIS; I
> can't see how those make sense together. "tIlo'nIS" to me can only mean
> "be such that you need to use them!"
Dajqu'.
...
> >> "ghobe', pe'lora, HIyu'Qo'."
> >
> >{ghobe'} is not just any "no." It is used in answer to yes/no questions. It
> >is the same as saying "negative." Has Pelora asked any questions? No.
> >Therefore {ghobe'} is not very appropriate here. You might consider something
> >like {bIjatlh 'e' yImev}, or even an invective.
Or how about a simple:
Qo', pe'lora. HIyu'Qo'.
> I might even consider "Qo'", but that usage is controversial, and deserves
> to be so.
Why? "I disagree, Pelora. Don't question me.
> >> ghe''or 'oHqu' juH'e' 'e' boQubchugh, SulughHa'.
>
> Maybe Har instead of Qub?
YES!
...
> ~mark
charghwI'