tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 03 03:32:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: weQwIj
- From: Irene Gates <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: weQwIj
- Date: 03 Feb 97 06:30:11 EST
>>> My candle burns at both ends;
>>> It will not last the night;
>>> But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends --
>>> It gives a lovely light.
>>> cha' DaqDaq meQtaH weQwIj chu';
>>> tugh, tlheDpa' ramvam, loj;
>>> 'a toH! yIqIm, jaghpu', juppu' --
>>> 'IH meQtaHvIS, 'ej Doj.
Qum 'Iwvan:
> baQa', do I wish you didn't have to make that a *new* candle!
jIH je.
> I'd say {rInpa' ramvam}, though,
{rIn} is glossed as 'be accomplished, finished'. I wasn't sure whether it could
be used in the sense of 'be over'. Voragh, how is it used in canon?
> and certainly {peqIm} instead of {yIqIm}.
bIlughba'. HIvqa'qu' veqlargh!
Qum Lawrence ~mark je:
>> This is one of my favorite poems [...] I think you did a very nice job
>> with it, particularly in capturing the essence of the last line despite
>> the obvious changes you had to put in.
> Man, I'd forgotten how nice that poem was! And the translation is lovely.
Satlho'qu'. 'ach loQ vIDubnIS.
>> 1) what is the function of "chu'" in the first line (other than to allow
>> for rhyme and meter)? Why is your candle new? Edna's wasn't.
> Rhyme, surely.
Unfortunately, yes. A stressed syllable is needed after {weQwIj}, and even
though line three is quite flexible, there aren't many choices for the end of
line one. {chu'} doesn't do any harm if the poem is taken literally, but it
does if it is taken metaphorically (as it should be).
>> 2) the juxtaposition of "jaghpu', juppu'" in the third line seems
>> somewhat grammatically awkward. I keep looking for a "je" to tie them in
>> rather than having to depend on the comma. This is a minor complaint
>> though and easily dismissed under the blanket of "poetic license,"
>> especially as the line flows and works so well as written.
> Actually, I rather like the asyndeton, with no conjunction.
So do I. And they're being addressed, not referred to. The grammar may not
require a conjunction, just as English doesn't in "Friends, Romans, countrymen,
lend me your ears ...".
> Though I just came up with a possibility to lose the "chu'" and put the
> conjunction back in, at the cost of changing a perfect rhyme to a near-rhyme.
jIngor 'e' Dachup'a'? jatlIj yIchop!
> Replace the first line with "cha' DaqDaq meQtaH weQwIj'e'" and the third
> line with "'a toH, peqIm, jagh jup je" (missing a syllable, actually, but I
> don't like pluralizing one and not the other).
The syllable's easy to put back: {'a toH! peqImchu', jagh jup je}. It's the
rhyme I don't like.
> I am not sure it's worth it just to remove the "chu'". There may be other
ways too.
reH mIw latlh tu'lu'. But it often comes down to a compromise, and this looks
to be such a case.
Qumqa' 'Iwvan:
> Re the newness that T'Lark has felt compelled (due to rhyme constraints,
> to everyone's dissatisfaction) to attribute to Edna St Vincent Millay's
> bilateral candle, how about ...
> cha' DaqDaq meQtaH weQwIj lI'; [...]
> 'a toH! [pe]qIm, jaghwI', jupwI' --
> It is still not quite there (it would be better to avoid the epithet
> altogether), but I think that `useful' is more tolerable than `new'.
Well ... I don't much like {lI'}, myself. How about:
cha' DaqDaq meQtaH weQwIj tlhegh;
tugh, rInpa' ramvam, loj;
'a toH! jaghpu', juppu', pelegh --
'IH meQtaHvIS, 'ej Doj.
This works if (a) the Klingons have no word for 'wick' and so a compound {weQ
tlhegh} would be natural; and (b) it doesn't matter that the
not-explicitly-stated subject of lines two and four is no longer identical to
the subject of line one (i.e. 'it' refers to the modifier {weQwIj}, not to the
whole noun phrase).
Does anyone like this better?
T'Lark