daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Mon Jan 23 13:57:05 2012
In-Reply-To: <57EADB7F-E31A-47B7-86C4-0357810A07F2@flyingstart.ca>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:56:27 -0500
To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
2012/1/23 Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>:
>>> "DutoDta' 'e' DaHarDI' Dujon.=94
>> "As soon as you believe she's fooled you, she's got you." jImIStaH.
>
> toD DalaDHa'pu'. toj Daqel. qaq'a'?
reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS. mu' lugh vIlaDDI' ngabchu' Seng.
>>> jatlh, =93mu'meywIj tob neH, HoD. not mumevqa' bIj."
>>
>> nuqjatlh? "It just proves my words, Captain. Punishment will never
>> again stop me."
>
> That is precisely as I would have translated it. I warned you that the Ho=
ta'ro' situation would get murkier before it got clearer. I can't look at t=
he original while editing this, so if the problem is which words it proves,=
I'll check that after sending this. I could have put a line in the wrong p=
lace while editing.
The problem is the second sentence: "Punishment will never again stop
me." I don't see how it fits the situation, either now or when she
first served under qImyal.
>>> not Qu' naQ nguvmoHta' ta'Hom nub.
>>
>> "A suspect bit of deed never paints a complete mission." I fear I've
>> totally lost the groove on this installment.
>
> Other than the aspect suffix, that's again what I intended. Hota'ro' aske=
d him to identify any dishonourable missions he had taken part in. Maybe yo=
u don't like the metaphor of causing to be dyed for changing the character =
of, contaminating, colouring, staining. He has committed minor misdeeds tha=
t one might say were not the epitome of honour, but none that made the whol=
e mission so.
I like the metaphor fine. I think I was just disoriented by my ongoing
lack of comprehension and didn't recognize it as metaphor. If I had
chosen to translate it as "color" or "stain" instead of "paint", it
likely would have clicked.
>>> jatlh Hota'ro', =93DughelDI' Sa', yIyevQo'. =94
>>
>> qatlh potlh yevQo'ghach? nuq ta'nIStaH HoD gheltaHvIS Sa'?
>
> SIbI' jangnIS. yevDI' DIvlaw' pagh neplaw' 'e' Har Hota'ro'.
yaj.
>> vay' peghchugh vajar HoD, peghchu'. peghDaj Sovbe' vabDot ghaH'e'.
>
> :-)
I think I overreached by putting {vabDot} where I did. {je} in its
place would work too.
>> I don't think
>> {-lI'} fits on {wa'DIch}, even if {yaS wa'DIch} is usually a single
>> idea.
>
> But we can put noun suffixes on wejDIch as in qrp'a' wejDIch. It looks ri=
ghter to me now than it did when I wrote that footnote, but I'm on a bus.
You're thinking specifically of Type 5 suffixes, I think. Those go on
the "adjective" following a noun. Other suffixes stay on the noun.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
