[97963] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] romyo' julyet je: bI'reS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Tue Feb 4 06:39:10 2014
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:38:16 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmPVwotiL-xdqvpjktJtCzNsO4-WskSYW-1ifA8LdXg6aA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============0589903866143384790==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_d769e5b4-04a9-4da9-946b-04fc07840a91_"
--_d769e5b4-04a9-4da9-946b-04fc07840a91_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jIjatlhpu' jIH:
> romyo' julyet je: bI'reS=0A=
> nur rap lughajbogh cha' tuqmey tu'lu'=2C
=0A=
> vero'na' 'IHDaq qaS ghe'naQmaj Dun=3B
=0A=
> muStaHghachDaj tIQvo' chenchoH Seng chu'=2C=0A=
On reflection I think that {muSchuqtaHghach} "mutual hatred" might be bette=
r.
mujang De'vID=2C jatlh:
> I don't think you can say {X-vo' chenchoH Y} unless X is a physical place=
.
I take a slightly more liberal view on {-Daq} and {-vo'} as spatial locativ=
es=2C following the canon proverb {wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap}. That pr=
overb doesn't imply that everyone needs necessarily to be in the same *phys=
ical* location. In any case=2C I think of it as like a metaphorical new sho=
ot of trouble emerging from the soil of the two houses' ancient hatred.
jIH:
=0A=
> ghopDu' mIl HoQmoH quv ghajbogh 'Iw chun.
=0A=
> HeghmoHbogh cha' gholpu'vam tuqmeyvaD
=0A=
> yInnIS[1] bang chang'eng 'e' maq QI'tu' San.
=0A=
> [1] The English here is "a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life"=
=2C> in which "take their life" could carry meanings of both birth and suic=
ide.> I couldn't work out a decent wordplay as written=2C but {yInnIS} "the=
y need> to live" could alternately be read as {yIn nIS} "they disrupt lives=
".
De'vID:
=0A=
=0A=
> {nargh yInchaj} "their lives appear/escape"? Just a thought.
And an excellent one. Let me try again (also changing {-vaD} to {-vo'} in t=
he preceding line to compensate):
HeghmoHbogh cha' gholpu'vam tuqmeyvo'
=0A=
nargh bang chang'eng qa' 'e' maq QI'tu' San.vangHa'pu' chaH=2C tIvup! tuqch=
aj pabQo'=2C'ej Heghchajmo' cha' tuq yol ngo' luvan.
=0A=
jIH:> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqayvetlh chuD QeH=2C=0A=
De'vID:
> I had trouble understanding that {QeH} was a noun=2C rather than an adjec=
tive> modifying {chuD}.
The reading with {QeH} as an adjective makes less sense semantically: "the =
lovers' angry kin who indeed endure".
taH:
> Also=2C possibly {chuD} is too broad for "parents".
I was going for this for two reasons: 1) the feud between the Montagues and=
the Capulets in the story goes beyond just the parents to include most mem=
bers of the two warring houses=2C so I thought the choice was appropriate=
=3B but 2) more importantly I couldn't find any easy recast for "parents" t=
hat didn't go to at least five syllables (vavchaj SoSchaj je)=2C eating up =
a full half-line. Are you thinking of an alternative?
taH:
> It would also help to put in explicit plural markers.=0A=
=0A=
yajchu'. For both {parmaqqay} and {chuD}=2C you think? So three alternative=
s:
taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqaypu' chuD QeH.taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqay chuDmey QeH.=20
taHqu'bogh parmaqqaypu' chuDmey QeH.
jIH:> parmaqchaj'e' bejbogh Hegh je wImuch=3B
=0A=
> yol Qaw' puq yIn lughanglu'pu'bogh neH=2C=0A=
De'vID:
> Good contrast between {ghang} and {van} used two lines above.
tlho'. :)
=0A=
jIH:> DaH vaSmajDaq cha' rep lutvam wIruch.[2]
=0A=
> [2] Though strictly we don't have canon for it=2C I like using {ruch} in =
this way.
De'vID:
=0A=
=0A=
> ?{Qu'lIj yIruch} looks to me like it's missing a verb. I would write this=
as> {Qu'lIj yIchav=2C yIruch!} ?{lutvam wIruch} looks to me like it's miss=
ing something> for the same reason. What are we doing with {lut}? {bej}? {j=
a'}? {much?}
I understand your point. Does this work any better for you?
naDev cha' rep lutvetlh wIcha' net ruch.
taH:
> I interpret {targhlIj yIngagh=2C yIruch} as {targhlIj yIngagh=2C [targhlI=
j Dangagh 'e']> yIruch}=2C where the part in [brackets] is implicit.
Your implication is that {ruch} is in fact capable of taking an object=2C i=
f that's the case.
jIH:
> rIn bI'reS=2C 'ach vay' Qoybe'lu'pu'chugh=2C
=0A=
> tuvchugh teSDu'=2C yajmoHjaj muchmaj Dugh.=0A=
De'vID:
> The original is directed to the watcher=2C rather than an indefinite pers=
on=2C> and I think it's better if it's kept the same.
That's fair too. I have to confess my choice was done in the main to avoid =
having to choose between singular or plural for the direct address (singula=
r as a reader=2C or plural as an audience). I'll go with plural for now. Wh=
at do you think of:
rIn bI'reSvam=2C 'ach vay' boQoybe'chugh=2C
tuvchugh teSDu'raj=2C QIjjaj muchmaj Dugh.
QeS
=
--_d769e5b4-04a9-4da9-946b-04fc07840a91_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>jIjatlhpu' jIH:<br>>=3B romyo'=
julyet je: bI'reS<div>=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B nur rap lughajbogh cha' tuqmey tu'lu'=2C<br>=0A=
>=3B vero'na' 'IHDaq qaS ghe'naQmaj Dun=3B<br>=0A=
>=3B muStaHghachDaj tIQvo' chenchoH Seng chu'=2C</p>=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">On reflection I think that {muSchuqta=
Hghach} "mutual hatred" might be better.<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p d=
ir=3D"ltr">mujang De'vID=2C jatlh:<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B I don't thi=
nk you can say {X-vo' chenchoH Y} unless X is a physical place.</p><p dir=
=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">I take a slightly more liberal view on {-Da=
q} and {-vo'} as spatial locatives=2C following the canon proverb {wa' Dol =
nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap}. That proverb doesn't imply that everyone needs nec=
essarily to be in the same *physical* location. In any case=2C I think of i=
t as like a metaphorical new shoot of trouble emerging from the soil of the=
two houses' ancient hatred.</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">jIH:<=
br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">=0A=
>=3B ghopDu' mIl HoQmoH quv ghajbogh 'Iw chun.<br>=0A=
>=3B HeghmoHbogh cha' gholpu'vam tuqmeyvaD<br>=0A=
>=3B yInnIS[1] bang chang'eng 'e' maq QI'tu' San.<br>=0A=
>=3B [1] The English here is "a pair of star-crossed lovers take their li=
fe"=2C</p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B in which "take their life" could carry mean=
ings of both birth and suicide.</p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B I couldn't work ou=
t a decent wordplay as written=2C but {yInnIS} "they need</p><p dir=3D"ltr"=
>>=3B to live" could alternately be read as {yIn nIS} "they disrupt lives=
".</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">De'vID:<br></p>=0A=
=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B {nargh yInchaj} "their lives appear/escape"? Just a t=
hought.</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">And an excellent one. Let =
me try again (also changing {-vaD} to {-vo'} in the preceding line to compe=
nsate):<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">HeghmoHbogh cha' gholp=
u'vam tuqmeyvo'<br>=0A=
nargh bang chang'eng qa' 'e' maq QI'tu' San.</p><p dir=3D"ltr">vangHa'pu' c=
haH=2C tIvup! tuqchaj pabQo'=2C</p><p dir=3D"ltr">'ej Heghchajmo' cha' tuq =
yol ngo' luvan.<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p>=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr">jIH:</p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqayvetlh c=
huD QeH=2C</p>=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">De'vID:<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B =
I had trouble understanding that {QeH} was a noun=2C rather than an adjecti=
ve</p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B modifying {chuD}.</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p =
dir=3D"ltr">The reading with {QeH} as an adjective makes less sense semanti=
cally: "the lovers' angry kin who indeed endure".<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br=
></p><p dir=3D"ltr">taH:<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B Also=2C possibly {chu=
D} is too broad for "parents".</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">I w=
as going for this for two reasons: 1) the feud between the Montagues and th=
e Capulets in the story goes beyond just the parents to include most member=
s of the two warring houses=2C so I thought the choice was appropriate=3B b=
ut 2) more importantly I couldn't find any easy recast for "parents" that d=
idn't go to at least five syllables (vavchaj SoSchaj je)=2C eating up a ful=
l half-line. Are you thinking of an alternative?<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br>=
</p><p dir=3D"ltr">taH:<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B It would also help to =
put in explicit plural markers.</p>=0A=
=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">yajchu'. For both {parmaqqay} and {ch=
uD}=2C you think? So three alternatives:<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p d=
ir=3D"ltr">taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqaypu' chuD QeH.</p><p dir=3D"ltr">taHqu'taH=
bogh parmaqqay chuDmey QeH. <br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">taHqu'bogh parmaqqaypu' =
chuDmey QeH.<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">jIH:</p><p dir=3D=
"ltr">>=3B parmaqchaj'e' bejbogh Hegh je wImuch=3B<br>=0A=
>=3B yol Qaw' puq yIn lughanglu'pu'bogh neH=2C</p>=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">De'vID:<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B =
Good contrast between {ghang} and {van} used two lines above.</p><p dir=3D"=
ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">tlho'. :)<br></p>=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">jIH:</p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B DaH vaS=
majDaq cha' rep lutvam wIruch.[2]<br>=0A=
>=3B [2] Though strictly we don't have canon for it=2C I like using {ruch=
} in this way.</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">De'vID:<br></p>=0A=
=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B ?{Qu'lIj yIruch} looks to me like it's missing a verb=
. I would write this as</p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B {Qu'lIj yIchav=2C yIruch!}=
?{lutvam wIruch} looks to me like it's missing something</p><p dir=3D"ltr"=
>>=3B for the same reason. What are we doing with {lut}? {bej}? {ja'}? {m=
uch?}</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">I understand your point. Doe=
s this work any better for you?</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">na=
Dev cha' rep lutvetlh wIcha' net ruch.<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=
=3D"ltr">taH:<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B I interpret {targhlIj yIngagh=2C=
yIruch} as {targhlIj yIngagh=2C [targhlIj Dangagh 'e']</p><p dir=3D"ltr">&=
gt=3B yIruch}=2C where the part in [brackets] is implicit.</p><p dir=3D"ltr=
"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">Your implication is that {ruch} is in fact capable=
of taking an object=2C if that's the case.</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p di=
r=3D"ltr">jIH:<br></p>>=3B rIn bI'reS=2C 'ach vay' Qoybe'lu'pu'chugh=2C<b=
r><p dir=3D"ltr">=0A=
>=3B tuvchugh teSDu'=2C yajmoHjaj muchmaj Dugh.</p>=0A=
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">De'vID:<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B =
The original is directed to the watcher=2C rather than an indefinite person=
=2C</p><p dir=3D"ltr">>=3B and I think it's better if it's kept the same.=
</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">That's fair too. I have to confes=
s my choice was done in the main to avoid having to choose between singular=
or plural for the direct address (singular as a reader=2C or plural as an =
audience). I'll go with plural for now. What do you think of:</p><p dir=3D"=
ltr"><br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">rIn bI'reSvam=2C 'ach vay' boQoybe'chugh=2C<br>=
tuvchugh teSDu'raj=2C QIjjaj muchmaj Dugh.</p><p dir=3D"ltr"><br></p><p dir=
=3D"ltr">QeS<br></p></div> </div></body>
</html>=
--_d769e5b4-04a9-4da9-946b-04fc07840a91_--
--===============0589903866143384790==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============0589903866143384790==--
