tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 12 16:36:02 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (Requiem) wej'DIch 'ay'
- From: TPO <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: (Requiem) wej'DIch 'ay'
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:36:10 -0400
>>>Hoch chavmeymaj ngaSchu'bogh paqna' tu'lu'. poSchoHDI' 'oH vaj tagh yojwIh
>>>(There is a (definite) Book which contains (perfectly) all our achievments.
>>>When the book is opened our judgement will begin)
>
>
>>>ba'pu'DI' noHwI' paqna' laDchoHlu'chu'. bIjDaj popDaj joq Hev Hoch
>>>(As soon as the judge had seated, they will read (in all details) the Book.
>>>Everyone will have their reward or their punishment.)
>
>One comment I didn't see made relates to the use of -na' here. When you
>say "paqna'", you're not really saying "a *particular* book", it means "a
>book, nothing more or less, definitely a book and not something else." I
>don't really see what you're gaining by saying that our deeds are recordeed
>in a BOOK dammit (it's not something that LOOKS like a book, it's not a
>spirit of a book, it's definitely a book and not something else.) and that
>they will read the thing that really definitely no-doubt-about-it is a
>book. Or is that what you meant? Do other Klingonists read this the same?
>
>~mark
jIQochbe'chu'
paqHey paqqoq ghap 'oHbe'bogh paq 'oH paqna''e'
paq 'oH Dochvetlh'e' 'ej Doch latlh 'oHbe'
I agree with mark
PS: nuqDaq [latlh] lanlu'
[latlh DIp] [DIp latlh] ghap
'e' vIqawbe'
DIp 'oH [latlh]'e' vaj [DIp latlh] vIghItlhnIS qar'a'
PS (again): why is [agree] [Qochbe'] instead of [QochHa']?
DloraH