tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 29 19:33:31 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Mouk-to-vor
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Mouk-to-vor
- Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 22:35:09 -0500
qeSmIv HarghwI' writes:
> I sent this in to the Round Table some time ago, but have not seen any
>comment. I would really like you to comment on what I have tried here.
va. pIch vIghaj. bong jabbI'IDvetlh vIbuvHa' 'ej chIllu'.
Oops, my fault. I misfiled the original note in my "KPL" folder instead
of my "KLBC" folder, and lost it for a while.
>The Rite of Mouk-to-vor as performed in "Sons of Mogh"
wej lutHomvetlh vIlegh vaj mu'mey neH vInoHnIS.
qarbe'chugh qechraj Qagh vI'anglaHbe'.
I missed that episode, so I won't be biased by what this "should" say. :-)
>ghopDu'Daq ngaSwI' ghaj wor'Iv ngaSwI'Daq MeQ 'adanjI
QaQ pab...
'ach pujlaw' mu' <ghaj>. qetlh. Qam neH. chaq ngaSwI' qeng'a' ghaH?
mu' Daj DaSamlaH'a'? rambej 'ach rut qechmo' jIngotlh.
<'aDanjI> vIghovbe' 'ach qulHom weq ghap rurba'.
The grammar is fine...
But {ghaj} is such a boring word; it just stands there. Did Worf
perhaps "carry" the container? Can you find a more interesting word?
It's really not important, but sometimes I get obsessed with meaning.
I don't know what {'adanjI} means, but it obviously has a flame.
>jatlh wor'Iv: qaStaHvIS yInvam Damaghlu'pu' SoHvaD ratlh pagh ratlhbe'
>batlh ratlhbe' DuH
maj.
>qurInDaq 'adanjI' ngaSwI' vIHmoH
maj. ('ach qetlhlaw' <vIHmoH> je. chay' vang wor'Iv? ngaSwI' yuv'a'?)
{vIHmoH} seems dull also. What did Worf do? Did he "push" the container?
>jatlh qurIn: tlha'bogh qaStaHvIS yIn batlhwIj vISuqqa' vIneH 'Iw bIQtIq
>Dop latlhDaq jIlengrup 'ej *StovalqorDaq jI'elrup
I think this needs to be {qaStaHvIS tlha'bogh yIn...} if you mean something
like "during the life after this one". {tlha'bogh yIn} "the life which
follows" is the subject of {qaStaHvIS} "while is occuring".
{'el} probably has the place being entered as its object, so I'd change the
last couple of words to {*Stovalqor vI'elrup}.
>jatlh wor'Iv: lenglIj ngeDmoHjaj tajvam
QaQ pab, 'ach...
leng ngeDmoHbe'bej taj. leng tagh neH taj. porgh tlheDDI' qa', ramqu' taj.
The grammar is fine, but...
A knife can't make the journey easy. It merely *starts* the journey.
Once the spirit has left the body, the knife is irrelevant.
>mup wor'Iv pum qurIn paw Dax oDo je ropyaHDaq jollu' Dax qurIn porgh je
mup'a' wor'Iv'e'? taj lo'be''a'? <HIv wor'Iv> Daja'nIS 'e' vIHar.
*Worf* runs into/hits/strikes him? He doesn't use the knife? :-)
I think you mean "attack", not "impact, strike".
The last sentence's word order is wrong. "Dax and Kurn's body" is the object
of {jol}, and must come before it. Also, since they are plural, the prefix
{lu-} should be used: {ropyaHDaq Dax qurIn porgh je lujollu'}.
Not bad. I notice you didn't say {qurIn lom}; should I infer that he
survived the ritual? wejpuH. batlhDaj Suqqa'be'law'.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj