tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 19 10:37:21 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: lut tlhaQ 'e' vItul

lab SuStel:
& jatlh jey'el:

& > veng tInDaq, qach jen HurDaq,
&
& An Ewok village? In Lothlorien? The Jetsons? We don't have a word 
& for "tall." When you say {jen}, I imagine one of these places, not a 
& tall building.

I don't have this problem.  I just see the part of the buiding which 
*is* high and ignore the part underneath it.  HuD jen - it's 
the pointy bits at the top I'm interested in, even though the 
mountain itself starts at sea level. quS jen - could be a chair on 
top of a table, could be a chair with especially long legs. nuv jen 
doesn't work for me, though, unless the person is on stilts.  
However, when I see "qach jen HurDaq" I think of someone outside a 
high building on a window washing platform.  I'd say "qach jen 
bIngDaq" -- and wait for SuStel to get pedantic: wulthDaq qar'a' SoH? 
Qom qar'a' qach?

& > pujwI' jIvvaD qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'.
& > To the ignorant weakling they seem mean and vicious.
&
& {qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'}. {-law'} doesn't mean that the *subject* of 
& the sentence isn't sure of the validity of the statement, it means 
& that the *speaker* isn't sure of it. Therefore, {qejlaw' 'ej 
& naSlaw'} means "they were probably mean and vicious."

I hate this one. SuStel's argument *does* follow the literal word of 
TKD, but the examples in TKD are all cases where the speaker and the 
point of view of the sentence are the same.  A story in the third
person isn't necessarily expressing the point of view of the author.
"The child didn't want to speak to the terrifying policeman so he 
hid in the safety of the park."  I don't think the policeman is 
terifying and I know the park isn't safe. I'm writing from the point 
of view of the child. So:

SuvwI'pu' legh pujwI' jIv.  qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'

*could* well mean that I the writer of the sentence believe the 
warriors to be mean and vicious, but I argue that it could be 
translated "They seemed mean and vicious," with the time at and 
person to whom they seemed that way being determined by the context.  

& > vaj chaHvo' Hop'eghmoHmeH nech.

SuStel's not handing out praise today, so here's some. Nice sentence. 
It has quite a different construction than its English equivalent and 
uses a verb that gets neglected, because we don't have it in English.

& > Hegh qoHpu' neH HaghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'!
& > Only fools die when warriors laugh!

lutlIj vItIv.

I don't think SuStel is wrong, just pedantic.  But I suspect pedagogy 
and pedantic share a root. Go SuStel. How can one ignore the rules 
if he doesn't know what they are?

-Qov

Back to archive top level