[91464] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Dhammapada verse 1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Tue Dec 27 22:10:11 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:09:54 +1000
In-Reply-To: <SNT106-W300F0DAD70E79F9151AF99A1AF0@phx.gbl>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
ghItlhpu' Josh, jatlh:
> jIvHa'wI' ghob paq
>
> wa' chang'engmey
Though I know that our largest piece of canon text, the paq'batlh, isn't
punctuated, punctuation does make things easier on your readers. Here
{wa': chang'engmey} would make what you're talking about clear.
taH:
> wanI'mey nung tIq
> che' tIq, chenmoH tIq
I like your use of {tIq} here. Very Klingon. majQa'!
> nItHa'taHvIS tIq bIjatlhDI' qoj bIvangDI'
> bIbechbej
{X-chugh vaj Y} is more idiomatic, and here I think {-chugh} corresponds
better to the original Pali enclitic /ce/. Also, I'm not sure you want to
recast to {bIbechbej}. It has two problems. First is that the Pali doesn't
necessarily imply that *you* will suffer; the suffering that follows you
might be your own, or it may be suffering of others, so I don't think that
{bI-} is appropriate. Second is that using {bIbechbej}, instead of more
literally translating /anveti/, breaks the link to the metaphor of the ox
and wheel in the final line.
> tanqa' qam tlha'bogh ruth'e' rur bech
Watch your spelling: {tangqa'}, {rutlh}. I think {bech} is only a verb,
too, so it can't be the subject of {rur}. We also have the Klingon word
{lem} "hoof", should you want to use it here - up to you, though.
Looking forward to reading more!
QeS 'utlh
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
