tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 09 06:49:52 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Requiem - Recordare/Confutatis/Lacrimosa

ja' edy:
>chonejlI'. maHvaD bIHeghta'. paghvaD bIHeghbe'ta'
>(You were looking for me. You died for us. You didn't died for
>nothing)

{bIHeghbe'ta'} means "You intentionally have not died."  You probably 
wanted to put the rover {-be'} after the entire sentence, making it 
{paghvaD bIHeghta'be'} "You have not accomplished dying for nobody."
There is parallel ambiguity in the Klingon and English sentences; is 
it the "accomplished" that is being negated, or the whole idea of 
"dying for nobody/nothing"?

>pujwI' yemwI' joq DalIjpu'bogh, HIlIj
>(you, wich had forgiven the weakers and sinners, forgive me)

{pujwI' yemwI' joq DalIjpu'bogh} seems to mean "The weakling and/or 
the sinner which you have forgotten."  Without an explicit subject 
pronoun, the head of this relative clause can only be its object.

Ignoring the vocabulary issue with "forgive" for a moment, I would 
probably change it to address the command to:
  {pujwI' yemwI' joq lIjpu'bogh joHwI''e'}
  "My lord who has forgotten [it/them]."

Or perhaps I wouldn't make it direct address at all: 
  {pujwI' yemwI' joq DalIjpu'; HIlIj je}.
  "You have forgotten [it/them]; forget me too."

The mildly ambiguous nature of {HIlIj je} is actually good here, I 
think:  "Whatever you're doing, put "forget me" on your schedule" or 
"Whoever else you're forgetting, add me to the list."  The latter idea
is very strongly implied by the context, of course.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level