tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 05 16:39:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIchuSchoHqu''a'
ja' Joel Peter Anderson <[email protected]>:
>This perhaps should be (and now is):
>
>QI'tu' Holmey ghot Holmey je vIlo'chugh, 'ach parmaq vIghajbe'chugh, vaj
>jIchuSchoHqu'
>
>I intended "If I speak the languages of people and paradise, but I don't
>have love, then I become noisy"
Aha. That missing {-chugh} makes a big difference in how well I can
understand the sentence!
Now that the grammar makes sense to me, I've got some disagreement with the
words chosen here. Why {lo'} instead of {jatlh}? For a sentiment like this,
{Hutlh} seems marginally better than {ghajbe'}, but that's trivial. The big
one, though is how you've "translated" the word "love". I am absolutely
certain I'm not alone in thinking that {parmaq} is not just a poor choice,
but is utterly and completely *wrong* for expressing the meaning you want.
The kind of "love" I think of here is more along the lines of a caring or
nurturing attitude, not romantic attachment. Why not consider using the
verb {Qorgh} or {SaH}?
I also don't know why you're emphasizing the "become" at the end. There
doesn't seem to be any such emphasis in the English sentence you gave.
-- ghunchu'wI'