[tlhIngan Hol] Because He knows

[mayqel qunenoS]

jIH:
> tlhIHDaq lIghoSmo' mupwI', Savup
voragh:
> {tlhIHDaq} is also redundant, since you have just mentioned them

I placed the {-Daq}, since {ghoS} can either mean approach / go away
from, depending on the presence of nouns with the suffixes {-Daq} /
{-vo'}. Surely someone familiar with the original text would
understand if I omitted {-Daq}, but I wanted to specify the exact
meaning for someone who wouldn't already know.

voragh:
> BTW, why do you call the Devil "the Hammer"?

oh, that was a mistake of mine ; I thought I remembered the correct
word so I didn't look it up.

I was aiming for {pumwI'} which would mean both "fallen" and
"accuser". We all know that he is called "the fallen", and as far as
"the accuser" is concerned, it fits because in the old testament he is
portrayed -among other things- as the one who constantly accuses man.

voragh:
> consider omitting one or both {ghaH} "he":
> 'ej 'e' Sovmo' ghaH QeHqu'.
> 'ej 'e' Sovmo' QeHqu' ghaH.
> 'ej 'e' Sovmo' QeHqu'.

believe it or not, I thought about it ! but the problem is, if I did
omit it, someone could wonder if the sentence was referring to a "he"
or a "they".

often I read klingon sentences, which go overboard omitting things,
and I find myself going back and forth at the passage trying to figure
out what the writer is trying to say.

so, I decided that if the verb prefix specifies the "who does what to
whom" I will be omitting things. but if ambiguity exists then probably
I will refrain from omitting things.

mop Hurgh


On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> For reference:
>
>   Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the
>   devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because
>   he knoweth that he hath but a short time. (KJV)
>
> qunnoq:
>> tera' bIQ'a' je Savup, tlhIHDaq lIghoSmo' mupwI', Savup.
>> ngaj poHDaj.  'ej 'e' Sovmo' ghaH QeHqu' ghaH.
>>
>> Revelation 12:12
>
> "I pity you earth and sea; because the Hammer approaches you (pl), I pity you (pl).  His time (period) is short.  And because he knows that, he is very angry."
>
> Some suggestions...
>
> You left out "inhabiters (inhabitants)" {DabwI'pu'}:
>
>   tera' bIQ'a' je DabwI'pu' Savup
>
> alternatively, since Klingon often repeats nouns:
>
>   tera' DabwI'pu' bIQ'a' DabwI'pu' je Savup
>
> and because {Sa-} "I [do something] to you (plural)" refers to a plural object, I would omit the redundant plural suffix:
>
>   tera' bIQ'a' je DabwI' Savup
>   tera' DabwI' bIQ'a' DabwI' je Savup
>
> If you use {lI-} "he [does something] to you (plural)" then {tlhIHDaq} is also redundant, since you have just mentioned them:
>
> Consider omitting one or both {ghaH} "he":
>
>   'ej 'e' Sovmo' ghaH QeHqu'.
>   'ej 'e' Sovmo' QeHqu' ghaH.
>   'ej 'e' Sovmo' QeHqu'.
>
> and combining the last two closely related sentences.
>
> BTW, why do you call the Devil "the Hammer"?  Is it a Greek custom?  For the rest of us, you could say {mIghwI'} the "Evil One", or {ghol} "the opponent/adversary" (which is what Hebrew *ha-satan* "the Satan" means).  [veqlargh} "Fek'lhr" might work even though it seems to be a proper name, rather like Lucifer.  However there's this proverb:
>
>   veqlarghlI' yIbuS 'ej veqlarghwI' vIbuS
>   You pay attention to your Fek'lhr and I will pay
>   attention to mine. TKW
>
> Which Okrand explains as meaning "each individual has his which is after all what own individual concerns" (TKW p.197).
>
> So putting it all together for a tighter - dare I say biblical? - style:
>
>   tera' bIQ'a' je DabwI', Savup;  lIghoSmo' mIghwI',
>   Savup.  ngaj poHDaj 'e' Sovmo' ghaH, QeHqu'.
>
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a'
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org