tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 20 12:28:48 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu'qaD veS (was Re: QeD De'wI' ngermey)
From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, David Trimboli wrote:
> > >qo' DuleghmoHlaHbogh qechlIj wuv vIt
> > >"Truth depends on your ideas which allow you to see the world."
> >
> > I think you've got wrong prefix and suffixes there. I read "Truth
depends
> > on the world your idea which causes you to be able to see."
> >
> > You wanted
> >
> > qo' Dalegh 'e' luchaw'bogh qechlIj wuv vIt.
> > Truth depends on your ideas which permit that you see the world.
>
> Nah, I forgot the { -'e' } marker for the head noun, I think is the big
> problem, and I put the wrong prefix on { legh }:
>
> qo' DaleghmoHlaHbogh qechlIj'e' wuv vIt
> "Truth depends on your ideas which enable you to see the world."
Take a look at this phrase:
qo' DaleghmoHbogh qechlIj'e'
your idea which causes the world to see
Do you see why I'm having trouble with your sentence? This is one of those
ditransitive problems. Some might suggest you mimic the "heritage" sentence
(/ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH/), in which case your original would be more or less
correct with the right prefix (/qo' nIleghmoHbogh qechlIj'e'/ = /SoHvaD qo'
leghmoHbogh qechlIj'e'/ = "your ideas which make you see the world"), but I
don't buy that one. (It's just one example, and there are a number of ways
to interpret it.)
> I think there's a subtle, but key difference with your version, though
> this may be a personal connotation. I always saw { chaw' } as something
> not related to ability, but to things like rules or outside intervention.
> Something like the difference between "I can't see it" where the reasoning
> is inability (ie. blind or in a bad position) { vIleghlaHbe' } and where
> the reasoning is "I'm not allowed to see it" { vIleghbe' net chaw' }.
>
> In this case, I'm talking about "enablement"; "your ideas enable you to
> see the world", and "truth depends on those ideas"... Do you see the same
> distinction, or am I taking the connotation of { chaw' } too discretely?
I see your point, but I can't say how far /chaw'/ goes. Anyway, we ARE
talking about an abstract concept (/vIt/ "truth") taking action, so might
one not chalk this up to a metaphor anyway?
> > >Ha' mu'qaD veS wItagh! bagh'egh DaQlIj 'e' yIchaw'Qo' ;)
> >
> > qatlh jechvetlh DatuQtaH . . . ? toH, qablIj 'oH'a' jay'?!?
>
> He'qu' SoSlI'; veQDuj rur! yuQ latlh vIbavtaHvIS ghaH vIlarghtaH!
chotIchtaH 'e' DanID'a'? mu'qaD'e' lIngpu'bogh targhwIj tlhuQ bIng nIv law'
mu'qaDlIj nIv puS!
(Hey, I COULD have said /targhwIj 'o'/ . . . .)
SuStel
Stardate 2887.8