[89321] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: chIjwI' tIQ bom: 'ay' cha'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Thu Sep 1 07:34:27 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 21:17:58 +1000
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110831224243.08054058@flyingstart.ca>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
jIghItlhpu', jIjatlh:
> tamtaH bIQ'a', vaj chIch maja',
> wItamHa'choHmoHtaH.
mujang Qov:
> It's fine. The -taH may be more than the original implies. Do you
> like it better than wItamHa'choHmoH maH ?
Either works for me; the original "And we did speak only to break / the
silence of the sea!" to me implies a sort of generalised aspect that I
think would be equally well served with or without -taH. So I'll drop
it and go with maH if you think -taH is too much. maH helps bring the
focus back onto the crew too, I guess.
Qov:
> but I still think you're wrong in thinking that "about" means nuDech.
> It's a dance instruction to turn.
Ah! I see now what you mean from the Macbeth example - thanks. I was not
familiar with that usage at all, so now you've pointed it out I agree
completely.
This, then:
DopvamDaq DIng, DopvetlhDaq DIng
'ej mI' ram Hegh Sech mIS.
rItlh DIjbogh veqlargh rur bIQ'a',
wov 'oH, 'ej SuD, 'ej chIS.
jIH:
> Part III has "Gramercy!". Er, what?
Qov:
> ghuy'cha'!
reH lI'. :)
QeS 'utlh
