[89317] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: chIjwI' tIQ bom: 'ay' cha'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Thu Sep 1 01:38:55 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:27:18 +1000
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110831100931.08002068@flyingstart.ca>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
jIghItlhpu', jIjatlh;
> Hurghbe', Doqbe', qab wovqu' rur
mujang Qov:
> Now I understand why you accepted so many of my baffled translations without
> correcting me.
Indeed. Coleridge was hooked on laudanum, as you said, and the weirdness is in
the original in a lot of places...
jIH:
> taHqu' SuS tIS, joq bIQ'a' chIS,
Qov:
> I suggest yu'egh chIS. I understood bIQ'a' chIS as frozen ocean, and
> it confused me, as does the joq. Didn't they both happen?
{joq} is supposed to be the verb "to flutter". If it were the conjunction, it
should come at the end. (I'm trying to avoid using archaic grammar from KGT
like non-final conjunctions. It's hard enough to make sense of even in bog-
standard ta' Hol.) I see what you mean about {bIQ'a' chIS} though.
jIH:
> tammo' bIQ'a' pagh'e' wIja',
> wItamHa'be'moHtaH.
Qov:
> Isn't your translation the opposite of the poem? My read of Coleridge
> is tammo' bIQ'a' chIch tamHa'moHmeH jatlh chaH.
Hrm. Not sure how I managed to do that. How about:
tamtaH bIQ'a', vaj chIch maja',
wItamHa'choHmoHtaH.
Qov:
> You've deliberately inverted the order of the next two verses?
HIvqa' veqlargh! bong vIyoymoH. DaH vIyoyHa'moHpu'.
jIH:
> qaStaH ngIq jaj, qaStaH ngIq jaj,
> ratlh vIHbe'taHghach Huj;
> 'ej bIQ'a'Daq ghItlhlu'pu'bogh
> Duj ghItlhlu'bogh rur Duj.
Qov:
> naDev mu'meylIj qaq law' Colridge mu'mey qaq puS. 'a Hol QIv lo'nIS ghaH. :-)
net Sov. :)
jIH:
> 'ej bIQ'a' charDaq lengchoHqu'
> Sarqu'bogh Depmey char.
Qov:
> Sort of a shame you lose the legs, as they are such a big wtf for the poem.
You know, I don't even know why I did. ghunchu'wI' points out a perfectly good
substitute:
'ej bIQ'a' charDaq lengchoHqu'
'uS ghajbogh Depmey char.
and the following might also work:
'ej bIQ'a' charDaq lengchoHmeH
'uSDu' lo' Depmey char.
Qov:
> (My previous exposure to this may have been all via Douglas Adams).
ghunchu'wI':
> Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency is what first prompted me to read
> the Rime.
For me too, funnily enough!
jIH:
> nuDech, nuDech 'ej mI' Hegh Sech,
> ramvetlh wovmoHwI' nov;
Qov:
> Interesting. "About" here I'm pretty sure actually means tlhe' or DIng.
As a replacement for {mI'}, you mean? I do like {DIng}. It gives a sense
of speed or out-of-control-edness that's kind of appropriate here.
> I can't claim that your first two lines are any less parseble than
> Coleridge's. I sometimes dislike your use of sentence conjunctions as
> makeweight, and this is one of those places.
Oddly, here I was using it very deliberately. I specifically wanted to
chain {nuDech} and {mI'} together to imply a cataphoric construction
{nuDech 'ej mI' Hegh Sech} rather than the more usual order {nuDech Hegh
Sech 'ej mI'}. But clearly that failed. How about this instead:
nuDech Hegh Sech 'ej DIng; nuDech
ramvetlh wovmoHwI' nov.
"The torch[es] of death surrounded us and spun,
that night's alien lights surrounded us."
jIH:
> 'eng bIr qo'vo' nutlhej.
Qov:
> Thanks for getting the exact correct sense with 'eng bIr and not trying
> to struggle with bIrtaHghach peDtaHghach je. You know there are people
> who would have!
lughbej!
Qov:
> I'm amused that I got as close as "alas" from your "toH va!" and that
> I wouldn't in a million years have got "Ah well-a-day". Coleridge,
> what were you thinking?
These interjections are proving some of the toughest bits to do well. Part
III has "Gramercy!". Er, what?
> Yeah, that was worth it. But totally worth trying without the English
> as a test of both the poem and ones comprehension skills. Keep 'em coming.
luq. :)
QeS 'utlh
