tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 16 04:45:03 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] O for a Muse of fire
jIjatlhpu':
> I'm still trying to work out the rest, but I can hear cha'wI'pu' 'oSjaj
> SuvwI'pu''e' in there, presumably translating "Princes to act" in the
> third line of the English version (and if correct, it gives us a canon
> word for "actor").
jang De'vID, jatlh:
> From my notes, we had that line as:
> <lut {ja'|cha'}wI'pu' {HoS chaH|'oSjaj} Suv'wI'pu''e'>
I couldn't quite work out what the first syllable of that line was meant
to be! {lut} is logical and works fine. majQa'.
taH:
> Both "story tellers" or "story show-ers" make sense, though the latter
> works better for "actors".
And since the preceding phone is voiceless it's hard to be totally certain
of it... Having slowed the video down I still can't catch any trace of
voicing in the first syllable of {ja'|cha'}wI'pu', so I still think it's
the latter, and as you say, it works better.
> We thought it might be <'oSjaj> as well, however, the <-'e'> on
> <SuvwI'pu'> led us to guess that there might be a pronoun such as <chaH>
> in there.
True, but from the sense of the original an {-'e'} for emphasis works
fine here too. {-'e'} isn't commonly used outside the copular construction
in canon but it's perfectly good Klingon to do so.
> OTOH we had to explain the "o" sound in "ozhazh". It might be <HoS>, but
> then I don't think O'Reilly drops <H> elsewhere (though he mispronounces
> it as <S>).
No, he doesn't. And the final sound of the word is definitely voiced, so
it probably can't be the pronoun {chaH}. With that eliminated, I think it
has to be {'oSjaj}.
Would you mind sending me a copy of your notes so far? They might shed a
bit of light on other parts. I'll send you mine in return as soon as I
get through the last sentence or two.
QeS 'utlh
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol