tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 04 09:55:36 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC:how do I translate the imperative?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 19:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
>
>I think one would simply say peSop and the speaker would include
>him/herself mentally in the addressed group. Or one could say DaH maSop
>Hoch. If you mean the liturgical "Let us pray," I suppose it would depend
>on if you are addressing Christians who worship as Humanpu' or tlhInganpu'.
>I think the curt command would reach the *Christian* SuvwI' better, and the
>softer gentler version,  softer gentler people. 

I've gotten in trouble for calling this "first-person imperative" myself,
but I know what's meant.  :)  Some people use -jaj for this, but I have
come to the conclusion that that isn't right.  To me, "-jaj" should only be
used in meanings like what you would say while toasting someone.  It's a
WISH or HOPE, not a suggestion.  So "mamejjaj" sounds like "I hope it comes
to pass that we leave, may it be that we leave," and not "let's leave".
That would be simply "mamej!" or possibly "Ha'! mamej!"  Note the
(Okrandian) line in the Time Magazine article from 1993, where it
translates "tachDaq maghom" as "we will meet in the cocktail lounge" (said
by a man to a woman, who responds "jIwuQ").  I think this is very much a
"first-person imperative" situation, though it isn't worded as "let us"
(note that "let us..." is not grammatically any sort of "first-person
imperative" either: it's garden-variety second-person imperative, ordering
some unspecified audience to permit "us" to do something).

>But either would be correct (right?) (Qob DaghoStaHvIS, yIyep! ) I know you
>don't mean Let us as in "let us have the hostage". But that is vub wIghaj
>'e' yIchaw'! anyway....

Actually, that's "vub ghonob."  "Let us..." here is just a politer form of
command.

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBM+YJfsppGeTJXWZ9AQEoWQL9Gp3cP0ysXj1/sBPw8JENcBVfIiWcTgxz
MMpQSQV1PGbK63GU7QI19/HQD1gFBJMMMYW8Q7OFqkKc07oYuykrj6OmMRZ5pwwO
l1Ur+LezWmPFDJc+bZfVU09RLNLnvBqd
=tiKs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Back to archive top level