[92617] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] New Canon - King John Shakespeare
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID jonpIn)
Wed Mar 21 02:53:23 2012
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120320102730.043f44a0@flyingstart.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:53:01 +0100
From: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Qov:
> I got a hold of Scott McCormick, the groom in the wedding ceremony that media outlets recently reported had a King John passage translated for them by Marc Okrand. Scott kindly sent me the text,
majQa'!
Qov:
> but there's a wrinkle. [ ... poD ... ] That's right, half of this is canon from the keyboard of Marc Okrand and half of it was done by someone else, presumably looked over by Marc and then sent on. Is it all canon, then? We have the paq'batlh problem again!
qay'be'. paq'batlh, Talk Now je rur neH ghu'vam. {canon}na''e'
wIghovbogh maH Hoch wIghaj 'ej {canon}qoq'e' wIlajbe'bogh maH 'op
wIghaj je.
Qov:
> From it I see {bID loD} clearly showing that "half a man" is done in that order
I'd interpret {bID loD} and {loD bID} slightly differently.
To me, {bID loD} is a "half-man", a man who is half (i.e., he is
missing something).
In contrast, {loD bID} is "half of a man", like a body missing
everything below the waist.
What does "half part of a blessed man" mean? It doesn't mean someone
took a blessed man and chopped him in half, but a man who isn't yet
completely blessed. The back translation takes {bID loD ghaH} to "he
is a half man", not "he is half [of] a man" -- although I suppose the
back translation isn't necessary drawing such fine distinctions.
So I'm not sure that {bID loD} is "clearly showing" how to do "half a
man". Maybe it is, but I'm not convinced.
Qov:
> Sonnet 116
Fantastic, one of my favourites.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
