tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 16 07:52:31 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Quotable quotes
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Quotable quotes
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:52:29 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from Ivan ADerzhanski on Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:20:22 -0800)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:20:22 -0800
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
>
>David Trimboli wrote:
>> January 14, 1997 10:43 PM, jatlh George Morton:
>> > Even one hair has a shadow.
>> > Etiam capillus unus habet umbram.[...]
>> {QIb ghajtaH je wa' jIb}, "One hair also has a shadow,"
>> although this may not mean what you want it to in some situations.
>
>Do we know that {jIb} can refer to a single strand of hair as well
>as an entire chevelure? And why the aspect suffix on {ghaj}?
I wondered about the term for a strand of hair myself. We have no
evidence, really, to suspect it, but somehow "jIb" sounded wrong to me as a
single strand. We've really got nothing else to go on, though.
>
>> > Fools laugh at the Klingon and Latin languages!
>> > Rident stolidi verba <Klingon> et Latina!
>> > tlhingan je <Latin> Holmey Hagh qoHpu'[...]
>> But you don't "laugh the language." This is ungrammatical.
>
>{tlhIngan Hol _Latin_ Hol je vaq qoHpu'.}
Excellent.
>> > The appearances of things are deceptive.
>> > Fallaces sunt rerum species.[...]
>> Here's an idea for a complete reworking of this idea.
>>
>> rut toj Dochmey Hur.
>> Sometimes the outside of things deceive.
>
>How about {pIj Dolmey chaHbe' Da Dochmey} `Things often appear to be
>what they aren't'?
chaHbe'bogh, you mean? Hmm. I find myself wanting to wax poetic with
proverbs, especially ones like this...
rut rapbe' Dochna' DochHey je
Or something.
I note you changed from "sometimes" to "often," 'Iwvan. Been deceived a
few times too many, eh? :)
>> > Honor is not everything; it is the only thing.
>> > Gloria omnia non est; res sola est.
>> > Hoch oH'be' quv'e' ; neH Doch 'oH quv
>>
>> {neH} always comes *after* the word it modifies.
>
>Also it means `only, merely, just', not `the only/unique'. Not nearly
>the same thing, except that they happen to share a word in English.
>
>> [...] Hoch 'oHbe' quv'e'; Doch neH 'oH.
>
>`Honour is not all; it is merely a thing.' That won't do, SuStel.
Not so. When it follows a VERB it means "merely", when it follows a NOUN
it means "only". "Doch neH 'oH" means "it is the only thing." "Doch 'oH
neH" means "it is merely a thing." Check p.57.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMt5OuMppGeTJXWZ9AQFOEgL/ekcGT0J1X1w97i2qK0LaIJbNepx4nlYb
YG5DbTQJbDOXEXvLdOoICr04l5wU3wAuN+A+QZeOiy1GB5zmMvSPWUfNzzriqrGH
efKQOYFcYgeHpTlof6XOJ0pS3YaG5mBX
=X1Q5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----