[83941] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2 (section 1/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Agnieszka Solska)
Fri Jan 11 17:10:58 2008
From: "Agnieszka Solska" <agnpau1@hotmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:08:39 +0000
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
muyIvqu' QIn tetlh Dotlh, Ecartis Dotlh je. 'op QInmey vIlaDlaHbe'taH jay'!
QapHa'taH QIn tetlh. qen QInmey lablu'pu'bogh cha'be'.
QapHa'taH Ecartis. 'op *digestmey* neH vIHev.
>wa'SaD qelI'qam chuq lenglaHmeH negh, Soj poQlu
>And provisions to carry them a thousand miles.
ja' voragh:
>Personally, I would omit {chuq} as it is redundant
At first I didn't have {chuq} there. Then I remember being persuaded to use
this word in a similar context. I've been trying to find that context and
but without any luck. I'd be quite happy to remove {chuq} from the line. The
general rule I've been trying to follow is to avoid verbosity.
SIv qa'vaj, ja':
>Can the distance traveled be stated this way?
As other people must have said by now, there is no canon backing for the
fragment {wa'SaD qelI'qam chuq lenglaHmeH negh}. If we ever find out how to
express distances traveled, it may turn out that the way I did it is simply
wrong, or at best fanciful. Should this ever happen I will find some
consolation in the fact that as a translator I'm in good company. A similar
construction appears in Tablet IV of _ghIlghameS_, where the following lines
get repeated as a sort of refrain:
vaghmaH qelI'qam lengta'DI' SopmeH mev
SochmaH vagh qelI'qam lengta'DI' QongmeH mev
qaStaHvIS pem naQ yIt,
wa'vatlh cha'maH qelI'qam ghoS
After twenty leagues they stopped to eat.
After thirty leagues they stopped to sleep.
They walked the whole day,
going fifty leagues.
latlh vuD qel qa'vaj. chup vay' (ter'eS? DloraH? jIna'be'):
>[...] I was getting ready to send a suggestion similar to ter'eS ...
>
> > {jIleng. cha' SaD qelI'qam 'aD HewIj.}
vIparHa'.
> > No reason why you have to try to cram all the
> > information into a single sentence.
In most cases, no reason at all. However, I do have a reason: a stylistic
one. The controversial fragment is part of a larger section, where four
lines end in {(-)poQlu'}:
Qojlu'meH
wa'SaD HIvDuj lupoQlu',
wa'SaD ngaq Duj lupoQlu',
may'luch tuQbogh wa'bIp negh'e' poQlu',
wa'SaD qelI'qam lenglaHmeH negh, Soj poQlu'.
Splitting the last line into two sentences would ruin the parallelism.
ja' vay':
>Except I was going to leave the subject [chuq].
>jIleng. cha' SaD qelI'qam 'ab chuq.
vIparHa' je.
'ISqu'
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
