[89609] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: chIjwI' tIQ bom: 'ay' loS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Mon Sep 12 11:38:43 2011
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:28:20 -0700
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <BAY166-W26026AA8B0CF15DCA91A9AAA020@phx.gbl>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
At 07:00 12/09/2011, you wrote:
>jIghItlhpu', jIjatlh:
> > 'ej yIntaH charbogh wa''uy' Dep;
>
>mujang Qov:
> > A million slimy beings lived on [Hmm, slimy being inflation :-) ]
>
>I thought this was probably the easiest way of dealing with Coleridge's
>"thousand thousand slimy things"!
Oh, I didn't notice the second thousand. I thought you were just having fun.
>jIH:
> > 'ej ngImtaHbogh bIQ'a' vIbej,
>
>Qov:
> > {If it's rottING, isn't it ngImchoH?}
>
>I went with ngImtaH here because the sea had already ngImchoH'ed in a
>previous verse, and I thought using ngImchoH again would be inconsistent.
>Do you think I should keep it?
I think you can ngImchoHtaH something. I certainly don't think that
it's inconsistent to use it again. It's closer to the original,
because English too has a distinction between rotting and rotten, and
that's the one Coleridge picked.
>jIH:
> > QunwI' vIjatlhchoH 'e' vInID,
>
>Qov:
> > I tried to speak to my god. [is that the right grammar? not QunvaD
> > jIjatlh?]
>
>Not sure what you mean; what in particular strikes you as odd about it?
That answers my question.
>jIH:
> > 'ej Dechmo' lommey law'.
>
>Qov:
> > {Hm, it's for the rhythm you've avoided muDech, I guess, but why not
> > muDechtaH lommey law'?}
>
>I stuck with Dechmo' here to follow Coleridge's original:
>
>"I closed my lids, and kept them close,
>And the balls like pulses beat;
>For the sky and the sea, and the sea and the sky,
>Lay like a load on my weary eye,
>And the dead were at my feet."
>
>The way I interpreted this is that the "for" (= "because") is actually
>modifying both "lay like a load on my weary eye" and "the dead were at
>my feet", so I thought I should keep a -mo' on Dech as well.
Ahh, yes.
>Yeah, I still get tripped up with law'/puS constructions that use pairs
>other than law/puS.
It's fine when spoken allowed, because the rhythm makes it clear, and
you can't stop and try and figure out what function this verb has in
the sentence. When you get to the second verb it's always clear, the
trick is not to stop and wonder about the first one.
>jIH:
> > 'ach reH Hegh mIn vIjun.
>
>Qov:
> > {Ooh, that's a different concept than in the original. I took yours
> > to be that somehow the narrator was evading the curse of the eyes,
> > whereas Coleridge's narrator seems to crave death.
>
>True. Might Hegh mIn'e' mujun "as for the eye of death, it evaded me"
>be better? That'd bring it nearer to the near-craving of death in the
>original: the narrator wants to fall under Death's gaze, but is always
>evaded.
I was going to suggest that. It helps because a) it doesn't make it
seem that the narrator is trying to evade death and b) because the
dead eyes on the deck aren't avoiding him, it makes you stop and
realize that he's talking about Death not death. Maybe.
>jIH:
> > tlhejmoHmeH cha' Hov vo':
>
>Qov:
> > {I guess vo' was just needed for the rhyme, then.}
>
>To an extent, yeah. It's a bit far from the original, I know, but the
>original's pretty semantically empty ("and a star or two beside").
Oh yeah, no problem. And as I got "the moon rowing them stars around"
or whatever I said, it's clear.
- Qov
