[2870] in tlhIngan-Hol
po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Jan 30 11:06:59 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 11:10:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: Amy West's message of Fri, 21 Jan 94 18:35:12 PST <D29igc3w165w@ne
tlink.nix.com>
>From: awest@netlink.nix.com (Amy West)
>Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 18:35:12 PST
>For "sing" I used {jatlh}, since that seemed to be the closest
>word.
You can't know this unless you got the latest issue of HolQeD (2:4), but a
new word has come out from Okrand: "to sing" is "bom". He says "chant"
might be a closer translation. Similarly, "song" is also "bom".
> I was also unsure of how to say "at morning" I would
>be tempted to say {poDaq}, but I don't think that's right.. so
>I just left it as {po}.
This has been discussed here now and then. I agree that "poDaq" is wrong:
"-Daq" is far more spatial. The one canonical example we have of "in the
morning" or "in a night" is "qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh
loD". Thus, "qaStaHvIS po" or "qaSDI' po" would certainly be okay. I may
be slightly on a limb here, but I am not sure that you're wrong using "po"
alone. As you pointed out, there is some evidence (CK sentence: vagh rep
bImejnIS: you must leave [at] 0500h.) I believe that there is some ground
for using nouns of time bare at the beginnings of sentences to indicate
temporal locale (so to speak). Similarly, we have "DaHjaj jI'oj" and
"wa'leS jIDoy'" in CK, using the nouns DaHjaj and wa'leS with no marking
for times.
So basically the qaStaHvIS or qaSDI' method works, but I think you probably
were okay anyway.
~mark
