tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 02 16:09:28 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: "one nation, under God"
- From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Subject: RE: "one nation, under God"
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:08:34 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <LPBBIGKDIBNNFFIEJIPFAELECKAA.DloraH@kli.org>
- References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020628095428.00a5aeb0@acs-popmail.uchicago.edu>
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all."
Voragh's 1st version:
>*America* Sepmey tay' joqwI'vaD 'ej qumvaD 'oSbogh jImatlh 'e' vI'Ip: wa'
>wo''e' Devbogh Qun, wa' wo''e' luwavlaHbe'bogh, wa' wo''e' HochvaD tlhab
>ruv je lay'bogh.
>
>"I vow to be loyal to the flag of the United States of America and to the
>government which it represents: one empire which God guides, one empire
>which they cannot divide, one empire which promises freedom and justice to
>all."
DloraH commented:
> > *America* Sepmey tay' joqwI'vaD 'ej qumvaD 'oSbogh jImatlh 'e' vI'Ip:
>
>Shouldn't the [-vaD]'s be connected with a [je] at the end, instead of
>['ej]?
True. I suppose I was overly influence by {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh
nejwI'} "Romulan hunter-killer probe" from KCD. Adding a comma makes it
clear where the two things you're swearing to are separated:
*America* Sepmey tay' joqwI'vaD, qumvaD 'oSbogh je jImatlh 'e' vI'Ip
In speech, though, it's a bit hard to tell where the break is between all
these groups of nouns. We could omit {'oSbogh} "which it represents":
*America* Sepmey tay' joqwI'vaD qumvaD je jImatlh 'e' vI'Ip
I vow to be loyal to the flag and to the government of the United
States of America
... but that defeats the purpose of the Pledge. You're swearing your
allegiance specifically to the flag which represents the government, not to
the flag and the government.
Why don't we could combine them into one long relative {-bogh} clause:
*America* Sepmey tay' qum 'oSbogh joqwI'vaD jImatlh 'e' vI'Ip
I vow to be loyal to the flag representing the government of the
United States of America
(I always tell people not to obsess over translating every grammatical
feature of the source text. I should follow my own advice.)
> > wa' wo''e' Devbogh Qun, wa' wo''e' luwavlaHbe'bogh,
> > wa' wo''e' HochvaD tlhab ruv je lay'bogh.
> > "one empire which promises freedom and justice to all."
>
>Some say that with -'e' the /wa' wo''e'/ can stay at the beginning (and match
>the other sentences). But I don't think it works well here. I believe it
>would be better as the subject that it is.
>
> HochvaD tlhab ruv je lay'bogh wa' wo''e'.
>
> > Also, I wanted to say *{wavlu'laHbe'bogh} "which cannot
> > be divided", but Okrand tells us explicitly that:
> >
> > The two suffixes of Type 5 [i.e. {-lu'} and {-laH}] have nothing much
> > to do with each other except for both being Type 5. As a result, no
> > verb occurs with both of these suffixes at the same time. (TKD p.38)
> >
> > Okrand tells us about the sometimes heard slang suffix {-luH} "one can"
> > in KGT (p.181), but I decided not to use it in order to keep the style
> > formal.
>
>For "Kahless, the unforgettable" he used vay'.
I'd forgotten that: {qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'} "Kahless the
Unforgettable".
wa' wo''e' wavlaHbe'bogh vay'
one empire which someone/anyone cannot divide
That's nice, but I think {pagh} "nothing, none, no one" works better:
wa' wo''e' wavlaHbogh pagh
one empire which nothing (no one) can divide
This part is tricky. I wanted to reproduce the rhythmic feel of the three
appositional phrases. Let's try collapsing them, as I did before:
Devbogh Qun, wavlaHbogh pagh, HochvaD tlhab ruv je lay'bogh wa' wo''e'.
Nope, that doesn't work. You need to start out with {wa' wo'} somewhere at
the beginning.
How about rearranging the order and omitting the extra {wa' wo''e'}'s:
HochvaD tlhab ruv je lay'bogh wa' wo''e' Devbogh Qun, wavlaHbogh pagh.
"one empire, which God guides, which promises freedom and justice to all,
which nothing can divide"
That's not bad. {wo'} can be both the subject of {lay'bogh} and the object
of {Devbogh} at the same time. Do we need a conjunction to link it to
{wavlaHbe'bogh vay'}? I don't think so. Let's repeat {wo'}:
HochvaD tlhab ruv je lay'bogh wa' wo''e' Devbogh Qun, wo''e' wavlaHbogh pagh
"one empire, which God guides, which promises freedom and justice to all,
an empire which nothing can divide"
Now putting this all together, we have:
*America* Sepmey tay' qum 'oSbogh joqwI'vaD jImatlh 'e' vI'Ip: HochvaD
tlhab ruv je lay'bogh wa' wo''e' Devbogh Qun, wo''e' wavlaHbogh pagh.
I vow to be loyal to the flag representing the government of the United
States of America: one empire, which God guides, promising freedom and
justice to all; an empire which nothing can divide.
Better?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons