[93397] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] "Never give up; never surrender"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Mon May 28 15:15:59 2012
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FC3B55B.7010908@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:15:38 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org"
<tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Interesting.
What would you think of {Qu''e' lI'be' De'}?
That sets the context of the usefulness of the information without banging heads over syntactic vs. semantic beneficiary status.
Just an idea.
And I agree with you about the joke. It is funny and we don't have to fix it, even if there are ways to do so.
Sent from my iPad
On May 28, 2012, at 1:26 PM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 5/26/2012 10:01 PM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>>
>> --- On Sat, 5/26/12, David Trimboli<david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>
>>> It's been a running gag that the line from Galaxy Quest, "Never
>>> give up; never surrender," comes out in Klingon as {not yIjegh;
>>> not yIjegh}. I was just considering this, and decided that a
>>> translation truer to the sentiment would be {not Qu'vaD yIjegh;
>>> not jaghvaD yIjegh}.
>>
>> How about using {-'e'}? I think we've lost a powerful tool by not
>> understanding its full possibilities as a topic-marker, {not Qu''e'
>> jIjegh, not jagh'e' jIjegh} "As for tasks, never surrender, as for
>> enemies, never surrender.}
>
> Ha! I'm usually ignored when I suggest using {-'e'} in this way.
>
> Per TKD 6.7, I'd probably arrange this as {Qu''e' not yIjegh; jagh'e'
> not yIjegh}. {Qu''e'} and {jagh'e'} are "elements of another type"
> (because they're not the objects of {yIjegh}, and {not} should go
> between them and the verbs.
>
>> Is there canon suggesting that {-vaD} is the correct suffix for
>> this? "Surrender for the benefit of the enemy" sounds OK, but
>> "surrender for the benefit of task(s)" doesn't equal "give up" to
>> me.
>
> I think {-vaD} works here in the same way it works for {Qu'vaD lI'
> De'vam} "this information is useful for the mission." It's a
> *grammatical* beneficiary, not necessarily that the beneficiary has
> actually acquired something. You could just as easily say {Qu'vaD lI'Ha'
> De'vam} "this information is useless for the mission." The mission
> certainly hasn't acquired anything in this case. {-vaD} represents a
> *syntactic* beneficiary, not necessarily a semantic one.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
