tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 30 18:49:41 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Mark's comments, Sonnet 123
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Mark's comments, Sonnet 123
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:49:32 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from NickNicholas on Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:14:40 -0800)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:14:40 -0800
>From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
>
>Said ~mark:
>
>>>jIHvaD Dojbe' 'ej Dal vaS'a'lIj motlh
>>>It not be impressive for me and it is usual your great hall is be bored
>
>>>chenmoHpu'bogh HoS chu'. reH chavmey ngo'
>>>The new power which was formed. Always old achievements.
>
>>I had said the head noun of the relative clause is the power; it seems it
>>should really be "the usual great hall(s) which your new power has built
>>are not impressive to me and are boring" (E: "Thy pyramids built up with
>>newer might / To me are nothing novel, nothing strange,")
>
>Yes; the ambiguity exists in Klingon, and I couldn't readily work a
>disambiguating topic suffix in metrically.
It's not a bad thing; just noting the shortcoming in my initial translation
(an error of insufficient breadth).
>Nick-style error on SutmoH = tuQmoH noted (he says embarrassedly; not the first
>time I've confused the part of speech of a Klingon word, either...)
That's why I called it Nick-style. :) I recall you getting Sop and Soj
confused for a while.
>>>luSutqa'moH neH bIH; ngo'Ha', 'ach notlh.
>>>They only causes <Sut> again, very old, but it is obsolete
>
>>"ngo'Ha'" here seems to be more in the "wrongly" sense. Not truly old, old
>>wrongly. Not old but just obsolete (E: "They are but dressings Of a former
>>sight:")
>
>I actually intended the "un-old" meaning: "they may be brand-spanking new, but
>they're obsolete nonetheless.) Of course, we have no way of disambiguating
>between the two meanings of -Ha', although I suspect the "wrongly" meaning makes
>more sense with agentive verbs.
Right; again, I was commenting with hindsight on my initial attempt. I (or
Ken, or both) had treated it as really nothing more than ngo'be' when first
I saw it, but now I realize you really wanted something more abstract.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMvFdscppGeTJXWZ9AQE5PAMAsJrHUyuH1R1yv40vaoRyoJcWtbuMIWja
qvtTP9CG4SAY8BVqVxdzV7YFP5Ko499rHayoJ0Qom5OqfEf5fthfGwOhUP1vz5o8
uHHBPxCeW7GtCoURoReyKRbgpJG0Oa6H
=PlHT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----