[94001] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] chIjwI' tIQ bom: {baQ} {DeH} je
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Tue Jul 10 10:19:40 2012
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:19:23 +1000
In-Reply-To: <805B357C-F38A-4D94-A797-0DB0B217824E@alcaco.net>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
jIjatlhpu':
> chIrgh leng wIlengtaHvIS maH tay'
> mutlhejqangchugh nuv QaQ,
> Dunqu'; jIHvaD lengvetlh 'ey DeH
> SawwI' 'uQ'a' 'ey baQ!
...
> {maH tay'} lajlu' 'e' vISIv. 'ach vIlaj jIH'e' 'ej vIparHa'. {{:)
mujang ghunchu'wI', jatlh:
> Qapchu' <maH tay'>.
jIbel.
taH:
> But I too get confused by how many are accompanying whom here. Part
> if it is the {-taHvIS}, which implies to me that some people are
> already walking together when a single good person decides to join
> the single narrator. Perhaps saying instead {wIlenglaHmeH} would
> remove part of that confusion.
Yep, that's fair enough. vIchoH.
I originally had {maH cha'} instead of {maH tay'} here too to help
alleviate the confusion, but that goes a bit too far and explicitly
cuts it to one good person and one narrator, where I get the feeling
the Mariner doesn't care how tlhejwI'pu' he gets or how many people
are in his {maH tay'}, so long as he's not alone.
> And if the subject of {mutlhej} is intended to be plural, lose the
> {-qang} in order to make room for {nuvpu'} and make it explicit.
The English is ambiguous for number too ("with a goodly company"), so
from that point of view I didn't think it mattered whether it was one
companion or multiple in the Klingon either. Do you think it'd be okay
to leave it as is with the {-laHmeH} change in the first line?
QeS 'utlh
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
