[89318] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: chIjwI' tIQ bom: 'ay' cha'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Thu Sep 1 02:09:25 2011
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:02:46 -0700
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <BAY166-W6051F36F2FC760A083CB45AA190@phx.gbl>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
At 22:27 31/08/2011, you wrote:
>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.
Ohhh, now I get it. Once I see it I wonder how I didn't.
>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.
It's fine. The -taH may be more than the original implies. Do you
like it better than wItamHa'choHmoH maH ?
>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.
I don't even know which I like better, but I like!
>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 actually meant as a replacement for "about." It doesn't mean
"surround" 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:
Actually now that it's pointed out, I can parse it perfectly, so that
one's on me and I don't know why I didn't get it before. but I still
think you're wrong in thinking that "about" means nuDech. It's a
dance instruction to turn. Here it is in Macbeth as the witches hold
hands and dance in circles.
The weird sisters, hand in hand,
Posters of the sea and land,
Thus do go about, about:
Thrice to thine and thrice to mine
And thrice again, to make up nine.
Peace! the charm's wound up.
I have no problem with nuDech in the verse, but it seems odd to
repeat something that I'm not even getting once from the original.
>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."
>
>These interjections are proving some of the toughest bits to do well. Part
>III has "Gramercy!". Er, what?
ghuy'cha'!
- Qov
