>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.)
>
The reason why I phrased the first two lines the way I did, i.e.
letbogh Dol jeylaH qo' tunbogh Dol'e'
Subbogh Dol 'ellaH Hap Hutlhbogh Dol'e'.
was because they parallel each other in terms of syllable structure and
rhythm (though, admittedly, not in terms of structure). Perhaps the
following rendering would be more logical while retaining the rhythm:
qo' Dol let jeylaH qo' Dolmey tun'e'
qo' Dol Sub 'ellaH Hap Hutlhbogh Dol'e'.
>>Subbogh Dol 'ellaH Hap Hutlhbogh Dol'e'.
>
>Dol Sub 'ellaH Dol buy'Ha''e'?
Sorry, I'm not convinced this version is better.
>>vaj vangbe'ghach [C] potlh vISov.
>
>vangbe'ghach or vangQo'ghach?
That's the big question <sigh>. It will be a while before I make up my
mind.
On the one hand, {vangQo'ghach} seems to better capture the sense of
REFRAINING from action. However, it implies a REFUSAL to act and the
corresponding Chinese word has nothing to do with refusal. The "wu" in "wu2
wei2" (non-action) can be understood as meaning NOT, NOTHING, WITHOUT, FREE
OF, NOT HAVING, EMPTINESS. This would suggest that {vangbe'ghach} is a more
accurate rendition. I'd love to hear an opinion of someone who knows both
Chinese and Klingon.
>>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.
You're right. {potlh} confuses matters unnecessarily.
>>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.
I see...
>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'
I tend to go for {-ghach} only if I can identify the suffix that seems
crucial for the meaning. Here, no such suffix suggests itself. I agree that
unlike {tIqwI'} or {jenwI'}, {QatlhwI'} and {ngeDwI'} cannot be described as
"things which are", but hopefully they can be construed as labels that can
be given to various tasks that we undertake.
>>chenchuqmoH tIqwI' runwI' [E] je.
>>Qutlhchuq jenwI' 'eSwI' je.
>>'eychuqmoH wab ghogh je.
>>tlha'chuq tlhop 'em je.
>>
>>vaj vangbe' yajchu'wI'.
>
>(or vangQo')
See above. {vangbe'} is closer in meaning to "wu wei".
>>tamtaHvIS ghojmoH.
>>DaqDajDaq Qap wa'netlh Doch [F] 'ej bIH nISbe'.
>
>Qap and not chep?
{chep}, of course. I must have been asleep when I wrote it. {{:-/
>Dol would indeed be better.
>'ej bIH nISbe' is vague as to the causal relation: nISbe'taHvIS (or
>nISbe'mo'!) would be clearer.
The intended meaning would be {nISbe'taHvIS}. However, I'd stick to my
somewhat vague rendering since this and the next few lines all end in {-be'}
and I wouldn't want to disrupt the pattern.
>>chenmoH yajchu'wI' 'ach ghajqangbe'.
>
>ghatlhQo'? DIb maqQo', for parallelism with next verse?
{ghatlh} might work. Well, the Chinese says:
sheng1 er2 bu4 you3
PRODUCE BUT NOT HAVE
GIVE BIRTH OWN
BEGET POSSESS
TAKE POSSESION
>>vum 'ach naD lajbe'.
>>rInDI' ta'Daj, 'oH lIj.
>
>lIj ghaH, not lIjlu', right?
Right. And thanks. {{:-)
'ay' chorgh qel je QInlIj. jIjangmeH DaH poH vIHutlh. wa'leS jIlengchoH 'ej
qaStaHvIS loS jaj jIDach. jIcheghDI' jIjang.
'ISqu'
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail