tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 29 07:27:15 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Tao Te Ching Chp. 81

Lawrence Schoen ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol ghojwI']

vIghItlh jIH:

>>pagh vI' yajchu'wI'.
>>latlhpu'vaD vangqu' 'ej law'taH vay' ghajbogh.
>>latlhpu'vaD nobqu' 'ej law'taH vay' Hevbogh.
>
>This is doubtless a problem on my end, and not on yours, but the phrase 
>{law'taH vay' X-bogh} looks mangled to me. I keep wanting to cast it as 
>{vay' law'taH X-bogh}.

ghItlh 'ISqu':

>In {law'taH vay' ghajbogh} the subject is {vay' ghajbogh}, i.e. 
>"something which he has". The clause says that something which he 
>has law'taH, i.e. continues to be numerous. The clause might be 
>rephrased as {law'taHbogh vay' ghaj}, i.e. he has something that 
>continues to be numerous. As for {vay' law'taH ghajbogh}, hmmm ... 
>it doesn't seem right.

Ah, that's the difference then. I was parsing {vay' law'taH} as the object of the phrase, making them the "many somethings" which are possessed. I never thought to look at it as "something which he has are many."

And, the more that I look at it, I still can't. The phrase {vay' ghajbogh} *still* looks to me like it should be translated (badly in English) as "which he had something" where that something is still the object. Why wouldn't your phrase be rendered {ghajbogh vay'} for "something which he had" instead?

Clearly I need to spend more time working with {-bogh} because I'm still not seeing this. Could a BG enlighten me with a few whacks from the painstick of education?

Lawrence

Back to archive top level