[Tlhingan-hol] New Canon - King John Shakespeare

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> TKD 5.4 yIlaDqa'. Following a verb it has the trivializing effect you
> describe. Following a noun it means "only, alone," and works here.'

While that's the gloss, it seems to me that all the canonical examples give it a trivializing effect. ...possibly with the exception of <quv Hutlhbogh jagh neH> and <qoHpu' neH> in some TKW vIttlheghmey. Those are all negative, but that may be purely coincidental.

> I see {pagh teHqu'} as a similar to paghna'.  Note the back
> translation "very true[ly] nothing."   So the subject of the sentence
> is a "very true nothing."

Ah, I didn't realize first that those back-translations were the "official" ones.
Strikes me an example of an overly literal translation, but I suppose it's not terribly far-fetched.

> But note that it's in the context of the previous sentence which
> establishes what, in this case is doing the jev-ing, and therefore
> may not be obvious out of context.

True, but in this case it's the atmosphere, so it'd seem to be valid.

________________________________________
From: Qov [robyn at flyingstart.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 22:58
To: tlhIngan-Hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] New Canon - King John Shakespeare

At 14:47 '?????' 3/20/2012, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>I find the use of {neH} in the first one a bit surprising: > loD
>naQmoHlaH be'vam rurbogh be' neH > ... > 'ach be'vam pupqu'moHlaH
>loDvam neH "The mere woman who is like this woman" "This mere man
>can make this woman truly perfect"

TKD 5.4 yIlaDqa'. Following a verb it has the trivializing effect you
describe. Following a noun it means "only, alone," and works here.

>The second one: > parmaq choH pagh teHqu' Interesting use of teH;
>appears to refer to something other than the truth value of a
>statement. A definite nothingness? Or perhaps it's two sentences
>with no punctuation between? "Nothing changes par'Mach. It's really true!"

I see {pagh teHqu'} as a similar to paghna'.  Note the back
translation "very true[ly] nothing."   So the subject of the sentence
is a "very true nothing."

> > Qombe'! nISbe' jevwI', 'ej not ruS baq. So, if this is canon, we
> now have jevwI' to refer to storms/tempest.

But note that it's in the context of the previous sentence which
establishes what, in this case is doing the jev-ing, and therefore
may not be obvious out of context.

- Qov


_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol