tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 30 20:00:07 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ghIj

>From: "Sean Healy" <[email protected]>
> > ngugh mevta' bIlbo.  Dochvamvo' jaHtaHghach yoH law' Hoch ta'meyDaj yoH
>puS.
> >   ghIq qaS Dochmey Dun, 'ach bIH ram law' Dochvam ram puS.  'ochDaq 
>nIteb
> > loSbogh Qob'a' leghpa' may'na' Suvpu'.
> >
> > It was as at this point that Bilbo stopped.  Going on from there was the
> > bravest thing he ever did.  The tremendous things that happened 
>afterward
> > were as nothing compared to it.  He fought the real battle in the tunnel
> > alone, before he ever saw the vast danger that lay in wait.
>
>Ah!  One of my favorite passages in the book.
>
> > I wasn't sure about the {-pu'} on {Suv} at the end, but I thought it was
> > probably necessary, as {ghIq} in the previous sentence changed the
> > time-stamp, and I wanted to be clear that this happened before the 
>events
>of
> > the other sentence.
>
>The /-pu'/ on /Suv/ and the /-ta'/ on /mev/ are both unnecessary, and
>possibly incorrect.  Don't be tempted to translate English past tense into
>Klingon completed aspect.  These are simple actions, not completed actions.
>
>Furthermore, the time context on that last sentence isn't /ghIq/, it's
>changed when you say /loSbogh Qob'a' leghpa'/ "before he [ever] saw the 
>vast
>danger that lay in wait."  This is a time context too.

The {-ta'} on {mev} was to indicate that the action was intentional and 
completed, but on reflection I see your point.  This action wasn't completed 
prior to the timestamp of the sentence, so it doesn't really need {-ta'}.  
The -{pu'} was to indicate that the fighting was completed before the 
seeing, because I was thinking of the {leghpa'} as a verb phrase instead of 
a timestamp, when in fact it's both.  I've actually been consciously trying 
to avoid using aspect markers as tense indicators.

>Personally, I think your recasting of the "nothing compared to it" sentence
>is excellent.
>
>Here's how I'd modify it:
>
>ngugh mev bIlbo.  ghoSqa'ghachDaj yoH law' Hoch ta'meyDaj yoH puS.  ghIq 
>qaS
>Dochmey Dun, 'ach bIH ram law' ta'vam ram puS.  nIteb 'ochDaq may'na' Suv
>bIlbo, loSlI'bogh Qob'a' leghpa'.
>
>I've removed the unneeded aspect suffixes.  I changed /jaH/ to /ghoS/ for
>some taste thing that I can't fully identify.  I figure that the REAL verb
>suffix you want on the /-ghach/'d verb is /-qa'/: /ghoSqa'ghach/ 
>"resumption
>of course."

{-qa'} fits much better here.  Thank you.

I reordered your last sentence, putting element where they
>belong and making the whole thing less confusing, and adding an additional,
>and clarifying "bIlbo" where the English doesn't have one, because the
>English has to use pronouns where the Klingon doesn't.  (And as I've been
>saying elsewhere, this isn't considered redundant in Klingon, and this
>example is the best reason why.)

Well, the extra 'Bilbo' feels wrong to me - as there can be no confusion as 
to the subject of {Suv}, a reindication is not necessary except for emphasis 
- and the emphasis is not present in the original.  That is, clarification 
(your basis for the second 'Bilbo') doesn't seem necessary to me.

As to your ordering of the {leghpa'} phrase, I was under the impression that 
all modifying phrases had to come before the OVS phrase they modified.  If I 
had known it was permissible to put them behind, I would have done it that 
way from the beginning, which would have had the happy side effect of 
avoiding the wrongly placed {'ochDaq nIteb}.  I still like the {'ochDaq} 
first, though, I can't really say why.  And Okrand says that adverbials 
don't have to come at the very beginning, just before the OVS.  (Although he 
does say that an element preceding an adverbial is most likely a timestamp, 
he doesn't say it has to be.)

>I also thought that /loSlI'bogh/ would be
>good: Smaug was waiting for Bilbo, from Bilbo's perspective.  And since
>Bilbo was walking down a tunnel toward Smaug's lair, it seems an excellent
>use of /-lI'/.

I'm not real comfortable with the use of {-lI'} yet, probably because the 
equivalent phrase in Finnish (my strongest second language) is highly marked 
in most instances.

>Kudos on using /may'na'/.  That was the /mu' pup/ to use here.
>
>SuStel
>Stardate 1827.9


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Back to archive top level