vengDaq, vengmeyDaq je
This is a sentence I came up with: vengDaq, vengmeyDaq je qaSchoHtaH Daw'mey. This is the sentence I'm trying to translate: "So revolutions broke out in city after city [...]" I think my translation works. I'm willing to sacrifice some literal accuracy for poetic effect, and I think this strikes the right balance. (I'm even bold enough to say it has an Okrandian feel to it.) My question is whether anyone else could make sense of my phrasing before I said what it meant. Thanks, bI'reng
On Sep 6, 2017 00:56, "Brent Kesler" <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote: This is a sentence I came up with: vengDaq, vengmeyDaq je qaSchoHtaH Daw'mey. This is the sentence I'm trying to translate: "So revolutions broke out in city after city [...]" I think my translation works. I'm willing to sacrifice some literal accuracy for poetic effect, and I think this strikes the right balance. (I'm even bold enough to say it has an Okrandian feel to it.) My question is whether anyone else could make sense of my phrasing before I said what it meant. No, I read it only as "in (a/the) city and (the) cities", which is redundant. What's wrong with {ngIq veng}? -- De'vID
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:31 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
No, I read it only as "in (a/the) city and (the) cities", which is redundant.
What's wrong with {ngIq veng}?
1. The canon examples of {ngIq} only give a rough idea of its precise usage, so... 2. I only risk {ngIq} when I'm confident what I'm saying fits one of the canon examples. I don't thank that's the case here. All the examples that fit the "one after another" usage seem to imply "all of them, one at a time", like checking items of a list. I think the phrase "city after city" is less about a sequence and more about the idea that revolutions kept breaking out *everywhere.* 3. {ngIq vengDaq qaSchoHtaH Daw'mey} could mean that revolutions kept breaking out in a single city, like the Year of the Four Emperors. Or maybe the plural {Daw'mey} implies multiple cities. I'm not sure, because point number one. But it looks like {vengDaq, vengmeyDaq je} isn't working, so I'll keep working on it. bI'reng
So this is what I've decided on: 'op vengmeyDaq qaSchoHpu' Daw'mey, ghIq vengmey law'Daq qaSchoHpu' je. bI'reng On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:31 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
No, I read it only as "in (a/the) city and (the) cities", which is redundant.
What's wrong with {ngIq veng}?
1. The canon examples of {ngIq} only give a rough idea of its precise usage, so...
2. I only risk {ngIq} when I'm confident what I'm saying fits one of the canon examples. I don't thank that's the case here. All the examples that fit the "one after another" usage seem to imply "all of them, one at a time", like checking items of a list. I think the phrase "city after city" is less about a sequence and more about the idea that revolutions kept breaking out *everywhere.*
3. {ngIq vengDaq qaSchoHtaH Daw'mey} could mean that revolutions kept breaking out in a single city, like the Year of the Four Emperors. Or maybe the plural {Daw'mey} implies multiple cities. I'm not sure, because point number one.
But it looks like {vengDaq, vengmeyDaq je} isn't working, so I'll keep working on it.
bI'reng
An expression meaning "in succession" seems to be needed. ----Original message----
From : brent.of.all.people@gmail.com Date : 05/09/2017 - 22:07 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject : Re: [tlhIngan Hol] vengDaq, vengmeyDaq je So this is what I've decided on: 'op vengmeyDaq qaSchoHpu' Daw'mey, ghIq vengmey law'Daq qaSchoHpu' je. bI'reng
On Sep 6, 2017 10:19, "Anthony Appleyard" <a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote: An expression meaning "in succession" seems to be needed. qatlh yapbe' {ngIq}? -- De'vID
The problem with {ngIq} is that its use hasn't been completely clarified. If I was to translate the original sentence, then perhaps I would write: Daw'choH wa' veng; ngugh Daw'choH je Hoch latlh veng. One city begun to revolt; then each additional city begun to revolt too. or Daw'choH wa' veng; ngugh wa'DIch Da Hoch latlh veng. One city begun to revolt; then each additional city behaved as the first. or Daw'choH wa' veng; ngugh veng wa'DIch Da Hoch latlh veng. One city begun to revolt; then each additional city behaved as the first city. or Daw'choH wa' veng; ngugh Daw'choH je wa' latlh veng. 'ej ngugh latlh veng, 'ej ngugh latlh.. tagha' Daw' Hoch vengmey. One city begun to revolt; then one other city revolted too. And then another city, and then another.. Finally all cities revolted. Of the above, my favourite way to describe the original intented sentence, is the last. qunnoq On Sep 6, 2017 08:53, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 2017 10:19, "Anthony Appleyard" <a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
An expression meaning "in succession" seems to be needed.
qatlh yapbe' {ngIq}?
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I should probably provide some context. The sentence I'm trying to translate comes from Thucydides describing the civil war in Corcyra during the Peloponesian War. So it's not a city revolting against a larger government, but people within the city revolting against the government of the city itself. That's why I went with {vengDaq qaSchoHpu' Daw'} rather than {Daw'choH veng}. I agree, though, {Daw'choH veng} has a simplicity that {vengDaq qaSchoHpu' veng} lacks. Perhaps {vengDaq Daw'choHlu', ghIq vengmeyDaq Daw'choHlu'}. Sometimes it was democrats rebelling against oligarchies, and sometimes oligarchs overthrowing democracies; that's why I didn't go with something like {vengDaq Daw'choH roghvaH}. bI'reng On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:49 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem with {ngIq} is that its use hasn't been completely clarified.
If I was to translate the original sentence, then perhaps I would write:
Daw'choH wa' veng; ngugh Daw'choH je Hoch latlh veng. One city begun to revolt; then each additional city begun to revolt too.
or
Daw'choH wa' veng; ngugh wa'DIch Da Hoch latlh veng. One city begun to revolt; then each additional city behaved as the first.
or
Daw'choH wa' veng; ngugh veng wa'DIch Da Hoch latlh veng. One city begun to revolt; then each additional city behaved as the first city.
or
Daw'choH wa' veng; ngugh Daw'choH je wa' latlh veng. 'ej ngugh latlh veng, 'ej ngugh latlh.. tagha' Daw' Hoch vengmey. One city begun to revolt; then one other city revolted too. And then another city, and then another.. Finally all cities revolted.
Of the above, my favourite way to describe the original intented sentence, is the last.
qunnoq
On Sep 6, 2017 08:53, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 2017 10:19, "Anthony Appleyard" <a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
An expression meaning "in succession" seems to be needed.
qatlh yapbe' {ngIq}?
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sep 6, 2017 01:24, "Brent Kesler" <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:31 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
No, I read it only as "in (a/the) city and (the) cities", which is redundant.
What's wrong with {ngIq veng}?
1. The canon examples of {ngIq} only give a rough idea of its precise usage, so... 2. I only risk {ngIq} when I'm confident what I'm saying fits one of the canon examples. I don't thank that's the case here. All the examples that fit the "one after another" usage seem to imply "all of them, one at a time", like checking items of a list. I think the phrase "city after city" is less about a sequence and more about the idea that revolutions kept breaking out *everywhere.* {Dat}? 3. {ngIq vengDaq qaSchoHtaH Daw'mey} could mean that revolutions kept breaking out in a single city, like the Year of the Four Emperors. Why do you think this? Or maybe the plural {Daw'mey} implies multiple cities. I'm not sure, because point number one. But it looks like {vengDaq, vengmeyDaq je} isn't working, so I'll keep working on it. -- De'vID
participants (4)
-
Anthony Appleyard -
Brent Kesler -
De'vID -
mayqel qunenoS