[89285] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: chIjwI' tIQ bom: 'ay' cha'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Wed Aug 31 11:21:01 2011
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:12:08 -0700
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <BAY166-W52049EBAB8B426598A96F7AA160@phx.gbl>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
At 04:50 31/08/2011, you wrote:
>mujang Qov, jatlh:
> >Again I haven't looked up the English at all, but I'm quite willing to
> >if you want me to take another look.
>
>I'd appreciate that, if you're game.
nIQ vISoppu'DI' DIvI' Hol vInej. I was tired as I was looking at this
and in a few places I gave up without exploring all possibilities,
but at least you see where someone could be confused.
> >This made way more sense once I realized the difference between bo'Degh
> >and bo'Dagh. :-)
>
>bo'Degh'a' Dalo', qar'a'? :P
Do'Ha' jIlachbe'. Hov ghom 'oS bo'Dagh 'e' vIwuq 'ej lut vIyaj 'e' vInID.
> >Is poS one of those words like 'em and tlhop that doesn't take
> >possessive suffixes?
>
>Now I think about it, I don't actually know! I don't think KGT mentions
>{nIH} and {poS}.
I actually like it, and think it's likely, but I'm relieved it's not
canon, because I'd have to be embarrassed for doing it wrong. It
works well here, and even if it isn't right it's totally believable
for poetic licence.
>jIH:
> ><< petaQ!>> jatlh chaH: << bo'Degh'e' yaH,
>
>Qov:
> >"Bastard" they said "as for the taken away bird and? [dont you mean je?]
>
>I didn't think the "taken-away bird" reading would be possible here, as
>when a verb is acting as an adjective the type 5 suffix should go on the
>verb-as-adjective. What I'm aiming for here is:
>
>...bo'Degh'e', yaH, 'ej SuS'e', qaSqa'Qo'
>"...as for the bird, it's taken away;
> and as for the wind, it won't be back"
Now you say it, it seems perfectly right. The commas helped.
>(I've cheated a bit here and in a couple of other places, using {-'e'} to
>bring a noun that was originally a subject to a topic position before the
>verb. Only where the topicalisation is appropriate, I hope.)
And I've kind of decided that I can't check everything, so my role is
just to see if it makes sense without prior immersion in the poem,
therefore I'm ignoring some of the topicalization, thinking it was
mostly for meter.
>jIH:
> >DungluQ maH DungDaq ratlhtaH 'oH,
> >'ej maS'e' So'laHbe'.
>
>Qov:
> >It remained above us at noon.
> >And it couldn't hide the moon. [huh? non sequitur]
>
>Coleridge's original is a bit weird too: "[...the bloody sun at noon] /
>Right up above the mast did stand, / no bigger than the moon". (Isn't it
>always about the size of the moon?) I wasn't that happy with my phrasing,
>but the meter makes the comparative formula hard to use here, especially
>in the negative.
Ah, in context "no bigger than the moon" is very like "couldn't hide
the moon," but you can see why I suddenly went "what couldn't hide
the moon? who wanted to hide the moon?"
>Hm. How about this?
>
>DungluQ jul mach puS maS mach puS,
>maH DungDaq vIHlaw'be'.
>
>jIH:
> >raghchoHqu' bIQ'a''e': QI'yaH!
>
>Qov:
> >Hmm. Did you consider non?
>
>No, I didn't. Good suggestion. ({ragh} was just what came to my mind.)
>
>jIH:
> >ramvetlh wovmoHwI' nov;
>
>Qov:
> >That night's lighthousekeeper? [no idea what's going on here]
>
>{nov} is meant as a verb-as-adjective here: "that night's alien lights".
>I intended this line in the context of the previous one:
>
><< nuDech, nuDech 'ej mI' Hegh Sech, ramvetlh wovmoHwI' nov. >>
>(Freely: "The torches of death, that night's alien lights, surrounded us,
>they surrounded us and danced.")
>
>jIH:
> >bIQDaq vagh 'uj'a' Saw' 'IvDaj,
>
>Qov:
> >In the water their altitude was five 'uj'a's ... uh At a depth of
> >nine fathoms?
>
>bIlughchu'! Coleridge: "Nine fathom deep he had followed us..."
booyah! I hope you feel victory too when you haven't written
"trapdoor Klingon" (that makes sense to the translator but is not
returnable to the original sense).
