tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 05 10:25:49 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Tao Te Ching
- From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
- Subject: Tao Te Ching
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:27:16 +1100
If I can be allowed some stylistic comments:
46K
> mIw'a' pabDI' qo'
> Du' yotlhDaq chon [A] Sargh lulo'lu'.
> mIw'a' HutlhDI' qo'
> yergho HurDaq veS Sargh luSeplu'.
You could say
Du' yotlhDaq, 'ovpu'bogh Sargh...
yergho HurDaq, Qojpu'bogh Sargh...
But the ambiguity isn't worth it.
> vaj yap vay' Daghajbogh 'e' Datlhojchugh
> reH yapbogh vay' Daghaj.
reH yapbogh vay' Daghaj isn't clear to me; I'd prefer reH yap Hoch
Daghajbogh.
80K
> mach pupbogh Sep; puS nuvpu'Daj.
> mIqta' law' lughaj 'ach lulo'qangbe'.
> Hegh luqImHa'be'mo' [A] Daq Hop lengbe'.
Why not just Hegh luqImmo' or Hegh lutlhojmo'?
Probably Daq HopDaq; I don't think it safe to assume leng is
transitive. (Yes, I know transitivity is a very sore point on this
list.)
> Summo' jIl Sep, leghlu'meH ngeD.
> 'uSghebDaj targhDaj je luQoylu'.
Qoylu'
> 'ach yIn nuvpu', qanchoH 'ej Hegh
> 'ej not jIl SuchmeH tlheD.
I'd say tlheD chaH, just to make sure it's clear.
44K
> ponglIj yInlIj ghap: potlhlIj nIv yIngu'!
At the risk of being unKlingonic, that isn't pong, that's batlh. Name,
as in reputation.
> yInlIj mIplIj ghap: lo'laHghachna' yIngu'!
I'd prefer: potlhwI'lIj yIngu', lo'laHwI' yIngu'.
> tlhoy SaHchugh vay' bechqu'bej.
> mIp vI'chugh vay' chIlqu'bej.
> yontaHchugh vay' not webchoH.
Disrupts the pattern unnecessarily: webbe'bej is enough
> mevlaHchugh vay' Qob SIQbe'.
I'd have liked Qombe' chaH, but slang isn't appropriate.
11.K
> rutlh botlhDaq muvchuq wejmaH rutlh naQHom[A].
> 'ach QapmeH rutlh, chImnIS botlhDaj.
> balmey DIchenmoHmeH tunbogh nagh[C] wIlo'.
The English, at least, is better reflected by
chenmeH balmey, lam yIQ wItap.
> vaj vay' lughajmo' Doch, lo'laH.
> vay' luHutlhmo', lI'.[D]
47K: No comment
54K
> vay' cherlu'chu'pu'bogh cherHa'moHlaH pagh.
> vay' 'uchlu'chu'bogh narghmoHlaH pagh
> reH no' quvmoHtaH puqpu' puqnI'pu' je.[A]
Prosaic. no' vuvtaH tuqnI' 'ej mevbe'?
> SoHDaq[B] ghob Dapabchugh, teHchoHbej ghoblIj.
I think SoHDaq is risky, and tIqDaq would have precedent in Klingon
culture (tIqlIj yI'ang).
> qorDu'Daq ghob Dapabchugh, 'IqchoHbej[C] ghoblIj.
'Iq is probably a bad thing, and 'overflow' isn't. SoD is probably too
literal, but perhaps HoSghaj?
Is the Chinese likelier to correspond to tuq or qorDu'?
53K
> machqu'chugh [A] SovwIj
'really' means 'truly', surely: machbejchugh
> mIw'a' Dun vIpabtaHvIS
> vIpabHa'choH 'e' neH vIHaj.
>
> ngeD mIw'a' pabmeH Qu'.
> 'ach 'oH bIv 'e' lumaS nuvpu'.
> woQ vaS'a' DojmoHtaHvIS chaH [B]
> yotlhmeyDaq wIjbe'lu'taH
> 'ej chImtaH tIr lungaSmeH qach.
You're losing the parallelism of these verses. Rhyme probably preempts
you, but; yotlhmey wIjbe'lu' 'ej tIr qachmey tebbe'lu' , or yotlhmeyDaq
wIjbe'lu' 'ej tIr qachmeyDaq polbe'lu'.
> Dunqu' Sutchaj, jejqu' yanmeychaj.
> tlhoy Sop 'ej 'Iqbogh mIp lughaj.
Still don't like it, but at least mIp 'Iq lughaj. Not sure why you're
avoiding the adjective.
9K
> buy'chu'pa' 'un, Dateb 'e' yImev.
> tugh jejHa'choH tlhoy jejqu'bogh [A] 'etlh.
I wouldn't know any Chinese even if it stomped on my foot, but I
suspect the syntax of these two phrases would be more similar:
'un Datebchu'DI', SIbI' yImev.
'etlh DaSIjmoHpu'DI', tugh jejHa'.
> naghboch law' ngaSbogh [B] vaS'e' QanlaH pagh.
> mIpmo' patlhmo' je DaHemDI' [C] lot yIghuH.
bIHemDI'. The "lot" seems overkill. DloraH and Voragh has pointed out
the grammatical discrepancy; but to me, lot yIghuH is much, much
stronger than "beware". By all means have a noun, but I'd prefer Seng.
> Qu'lIj Data''DI', yItlheD [D].
Data'DI'. yIHeD is unKlingonic, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I
think rInDI' Qu'lIj is more to the point.
> 'u' mIw [E] 'oH mIwvam'e'.
8K
> bIQ rur nIvbogh potlh[A].
or potlh nIv'e'. And yes, I'd put the -'e' in.
> qaDbe'taHvIS bIQ, wa'netlh Doch je'.
The strife wouldn't necessarily be caused by the water, but by the
things quarreling, I'd have thought. wa'netlh Doch je',
ghoHmoHbe'taHvIS.
> Daqmey 'eS'e' lumuSbogh nuv ghoS.
luvuvHa'bogh. Hate and disdain are very different.
> vaj mIw'a' rurchoH.
>
> juHlIj DachermeH yav SaS yIwIv.
> bIQubqu'taHvIS yablIj yIjotmoH.
Again, you might be missing parallelism here:
juH Dacherpa', SaSnIS yavlIj.
nab Dawuqpa', joynIS yablIj.
Or not; you know the original.
> bInobtaHvIS potlh law' yInob
yInobvIpQo', or yIwavrup
> bIjatlhtaHvIS bIvItnIS.[B]
> bIqumtaHvIS bImaynIS. [B]
> bIvumtaHvIS bIpo'nIS. [B]
> bIvangmeH poH pup yIwIv.
>
> qaDbe'lu'chugh DIvbe'lu'.
qaD probably has all the wrong connotations for this. ghoH, or Sol, or
'ov.
43K
> letbogh [A] Dol [B] jeylaH qo' tunbogh Dol'e'.
qo'Daq Dol let jeylaH Dol tun'e'. The "of the world" belongs at the top
of the sentence, even if you make it N-N. DloraH's bafflement wasn't
philosophical; it was cataphoric :-) ("the world" goes with the first
thing mentioned, since it situates both things in the sentence.)
> Subbogh Dol 'ellaH Hap Hutlhbogh Dol'e'.
Dol Sub 'ellaH Dol buy'Ha''e'?
> vaj vangbe'ghach [C] potlh vISov.
vangbe'ghach or vangQo'ghach?
> mu'mey lo'be'bogh paQDI'norgh'e', vangbe'ghach potlh je
I'd much rather ghob than potlh; the ambiguity with the adjective here
is debilitating.
> bIHvam yaj puSqu'bogh ghot.
bIHvam is odd; better you avoid it. bIH is enough.
puSqu'bogh ghot is awkward. Sorry, but ghot puSqu' is what most would
expect.
2K
> chal [A] bIngDaq [B] moHbogh Dol lutu'lu'mo' 'IHlaw' Dol 'IH.[C]
I don't like it. chal bIngDaq 'IHlaw' 'IHwI'(qoq), moHwI' (lu)tu'lu'mo'.
(-wI' isn't restricted to humans)
> mIghbogh Dol lutu'lu'mo' QaQlaw' Dol QaQ. [C]
> boghchuqmoH ghajHa'ghach HutlhHa'ghach je. [D]
> naQchuqmoH QatlhwI' ngeDwI' je.
Here, by contrast, I would prefer -ghach to -wI'
> chenchuqmoH tIqwI' runwI' [E] je.
> Qutlhchuq jenwI' 'eSwI' je.
> 'eychuqmoH wab ghogh je.
> tlha'chuq tlhop 'em je.
>
> vaj vangbe' yajchu'wI'.
(or vangQo')
> tamtaHvIS ghojmoH.
> DaqDajDaq Qap wa'netlh Doch [F] 'ej bIH nISbe'.
Qap and not chep? Dol would indeed be better.
'ej bIH nISbe' is vague as to the causal relation: nISbe'taHvIS (or
nISbe'mo'!) would be clearer.
> chenmoH yajchu'wI' 'ach ghajqangbe'.
ghatlhQo'? DIb maqQo', for parallelism with next verse?
> vum 'ach naD lajbe'.
> rInDI' ta'Daj, 'oH lIj.
lIj ghaH, not lIjlu', right?
> vaj reH taH 'oH.
NON ME TENENT VINCVLA NON ME TENET CLAVIS STETIT PVELLA RVFA TVNICA
Dr Nick Nicholas http://www.opoudjis.net French & Italian
QVAERO MIHI SIMILES ET ADIVNGOR SI QVIS EAM TETIGIT TVNICA CREPVIT
[email protected] University of Melbourne
PRAVIS ARCHIPOETAE CONFESSIO EIA E CARMINIBVS BVRANIS