[tlhIngan Hol] “Some nights ago” / julwIj wov SoHbej

Daniel Dadap daniel at dadap.net
Tue Jun 12 05:00:12 PDT 2018


Thanks, QeS 'utlh; this is very helpful. I have a few questions/comments:

> On Jun 12, 2018, at 00:07, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For my part, I think {Hu' puS ram} works perfectly well for "a few nights ago"; it carries an implication of recency that {'opHu' ram} doesn't, but whether that's a problem or not is entirely up to you.
> 

Okay, cool. I had already changed it to 'opHu' ram based on ghunchu'wI'’s suggestion, but since recency is part of my intended meaning, I think I’ll go back to Hu' puS ram, as long as it doesn’t break any rules, and is easily understood. I can see how 'opHu' might refer to a large number of days ago.

> I don't think an imperative can be the complement of an {'e'} construction like this. Safer would be {julwIj wov DatlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob}. 

Okay, qay'be', but if it’s no longer an imperative, should it be Datlhapbe' instead? I’m pleading that you do not remove my bright sun, not that you refuse to remove it.

> While {nej} "look for" works okay here, for your meaning of "if you find another", {Sam} "find, locate" is better. 

Thank you again. You are right, I did mean Sam here. I get those two mixed up still, and usually I use the qeylIS prayer from Discovery to sort them out; I must not have done that this time.

> 
> > chomuSHa'qu' 'e' wa'logh Daja'pu',
> 
> According to TKD, {'e'} as an object should come after {wa'logh} as an adverbial. The sole canon counterexample, as ghunchu'wI' points out, is problematic in other ways, though I suppose it at least allows an argument based on poetic licence.
> 

Do you mind sharing the counterexample, if it’s not too much trouble, and explaining how it’s problematic? I think I can change this to:

chomuSHa' wa'logh 'e' Daja'qangpu'

The shift in meaning departs a bit from the Terran version, but this relationship seems pretty asymmetrical, and it’s consistent with that.

> According to the rule of {rom}, here {jIqeHHa'} should be {vIqeHHa'} to agree with the object {Hoch}. I've noticed this in a couple of your subsequent translations too - be sure you keep your eye not only on subject-agreement, but also on object-agreement.
> 

Indeed. I still struggle with DIp moHaq rom when it comes to objects. I noticed a wI- that should have been DI- in HovHom, HovHom. I’ll try to proofread better; thanks.

> Overall, though, majQa'. I'm impressed. Have you considered having a poke at a rhyming translation?
> 

Thank you very much, and I appreciate the feedback. I’m not certain what you mean by a rhyming translation: could you please elaborate?

> QeS 'utlh
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180612/c4518e2a/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list