tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 18 11:50:17 2012

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] qo''e' tu'bogh pagh - 'ay' loS

De'vID jonpIn ([email protected]) 

<p>De&#39;vID:<br>
&gt; &gt; Dor ghu&#39;vam&#39;e&#39; luDIllaHbe&#39;bogh tlhInganpu&#39;.<br>
&gt; &gt; boQDu&#39;: *Bill*, &#39;ejyo&#39; wIpujqu&#39;moH &#39;e&#39; wIchup&#39;a&#39;?</p>
<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; I don&#39;t think {wIpujqu&#39;moH} is quite right. They&#39;re not talking about<br>
&gt; weakening Starfleet - to me mothballing it implies putting it away more<br>
&gt; or less completely, because it&#39;s become obsolete. Actually, what about<br>
&gt; {wInotlhmoH}?</p>
<p>I&#39;m not sure that {notlhmoH} has that meaning. {notlhmoH} sounds like one is making something obsolete, for example, making the Enterprise A obsolete by developing a faster/more powerful starship, or making warfare obsolete by rendering it uneconomical.  As you said, mothballing something means it&#39;s already obsolete, so {notlhmoH} doesn&#39;t apply.</p>

<p>Maybe {notlhmo&#39; ...} but I can&#39;t think of a word for &quot;store, put in storage&quot;.</p>
<p>De&#39;vID:<br>
&gt; &gt; CARTWRIGHT: jImorghnIS.  DIvI&#39; logh qoDDaq wunHa&#39;choH tlhInganpu&#39; &#39;e&#39;<br>
&gt; &gt; wIchaw&#39;chugh vaj maHoH&#39;egh.</p>
<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; tlhIngan Hol Monopoly wot &#39;oH&#39;a&#39; {wun}&#39;e&#39;? vIghovbe&#39;qu&#39; jIH.</p>
<p>Yes, it means &quot;be vulnerable, be unprotected&quot; based on the two instances of where it&#39;s used (warning, the two sentences are right below, skip ahead if you don&#39;t want to see them -- I&#39;m including them for context in case you want to comment on my use of {wunHa&#39;}):</p>

<p>{Dumer DIvI&#39; QaS &#39;ej DuHIv, vaj bIwunchoH &#39;ej bIrIQchoH.} &quot;Surprise attack by Federation leaves you unprotected and damaged.&quot;</p>
<p>{DuHIv jagh Dangu&#39;laHbe&#39;bogh, vaj bIwunchoH &#39;ej bIpujchoH.} &quot;Attack by unknown enemy leaves you vulnerable and weak.&quot;</p>
<p>De&#39;vID:<br>
&gt; &gt; qIbDaq nov veQ lumoj tlhInganpu&#39;. &#39;ej &#39;ejyo&#39; wIlaghchugh, yermaj DanDI&#39;<br>
&gt; &gt; mut vaQ[2] maHub&#39;eghlaHbe&#39;.</p>
<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; {mut vaQ} is fine, though {vaQ} also has strongly positive connotations<br>
&gt; in slang (see KGT p.67). If you want to avoid that, {ral} &quot;be violent&quot;<br>
&gt; might be a good recast.</p>
<p>{ral} is better.  Done.</p>
<p>De&#39;vID:<br>
&gt; &gt; tormoHmeH &#39;eb &#39;oH &#39;ebvam&#39;e&#39;.  ghIq mab wIqon &#39;e&#39; wIpoQmeH HoSmaj QaQ<br>
&gt; &gt; law&#39; HoSchaj QaQ puS.[3]</p>
<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; This is hard, and I think you&#39;ve captured the essence of it pretty well.<br>
&gt; {ghIq} should probably go before {HoSmaj QaQ law&#39;...}, but other than that<br>
&gt; it looks okay. </p>
<p>I still think it should be &quot;better than now&quot; rather than &quot;better than them&quot;, but I&#39;ll leave it as is until I think of a better way to express this.</p>
<p>De&#39;vID:<br>
&gt; &gt; DoS&#39;e&#39; qIpbogh *Cartwright* &#39;aj vIqIp[5] &#39;e&#39; raDlu&#39;.[6]</p>
<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; Again, inventive. Personally I&#39;d steer clear of {&#39;e&#39; X-lu&#39;} though. {net<br>
&gt; X} is perfectly acceptable for this.</p>
<p>Okay, changing to {net raD}.  But what about the {DoS&#39;e&#39; qIpbogh *Cartwright* &#39;aj} part?</p>
<p>Thanks again for your comments!</p>
<p>--<br>
De&#39;vID</p>

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level