tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 02 19:51:36 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Qu'wIj
> -----Original Message-----
> From: De'vID [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 6:25 PM
> To: tlhIngan-Hol
> Subject: RE: KLBC: Qu'wIj
>
>
>
> taD:
> > This is good. The only problem I see here is translating the title "King
> > Edward III". {wejlogh} means "three times", as in {wejlogh
> jIghIQ} ("I took
> > a vacation three times"), so this doesn't work here. You could
> use {-DIch},
> > which makes ordinal numbers. For example, {wa'DIch} would be
> "first". This
> > word goes after the thing you are counting. {Edward wejDIch}
> would be "the
> > third Edward".
> > Klingon titles go after the name; for example, {torgh 'aj} ("Admiral
> > Torgh"). So you could say {Edward voDleH wejDIch} ("the third Emperor
> > Edward"). Alternatively, we have an interesting example in KGT. There,
> > "Henry V" is translated as {HenrI' vagh}, so you could also say {Edward
> > voDleH wej} ("Emperor Edward #3").
>
> What's the scope of a word like {wejDIch}? When I read {Edward voDleH
> wejDIch}, my mind associated the {wejDIch} with {voDleH}. It gives
> a slightly different meaning. What I mean is:
>
> {(Edward voDleH) wejDIch} "The third (Edward who was Emperor)" (1)
> {Edward (voDleH wejDIch)} "Edward (the Third Emperor)" (2)
The point not being addressed here is what you mean by {Edward voDleH}?
Titles follow names. Fine. Why? What is the grammatical link? It is not a
noun-noun possessive construction. It is not a "genitive". It is an example
of apposition. Both Edward and voDleH are references to the same person. In
English, this is the equivalent of saying, "Edward, the Empiror" rather than
saying "Emperor Edward". So, your question is then, does this mean "Edward,
the Emperor number 3" or does it mean "Edward the Emperor, number 3"? To me,
it makes sense as the former. For the latter, I'd say {Edward wej voDleH}.
That then means, "Edward number three, the Emperor", or more likely "Edward
the Third, the Emperor". Note that Henry the Fifth is {HenrI' vagh}, not
{HenrI' ta' wej}, so that example doesn't answer this question.
> What (1) means is that there are several Emperors named Edward, and
> the person you're talking about was the third of these Edwards, i.e.
> he was Edward III, the Emperor. But (2) means that the person named
> Edward was Emperor, and of all the Emperors, he was the third.
> When I read this, my instinct was interpretation (2), though I know
> you meant (1).
>
> Not sure if there's any canon to show {(number)DIch} being applied to
> a noun phrase or multiple nouns. (Voragh?)
Again, we need to figure out the grammatical relationship between the name
and the title. I'm suggesting this is probably apposition, so the number
needs to accompany the name, not the title, assuming that the two nouns are
not more tightly linked in grammar than simple apposition.
> --
> De'vID
SarrIS