[Tlhingan-hol] romyo' julyet je: bI'reS

[De'vID]

QeS 'utlh:
> romyo' julyet je: bI'reS

> nur rap lughajbogh cha' tuqmey tu'lu',
> vero'na' 'IHDaq qaS ghe'naQmaj Dun;
> muStaHghachDaj tIQvo' chenchoH Seng chu',

I don't think you can say {X-vo' chenchoH Y} unless X is a physical place.
I'd express this as {Y chenchoHmoH X}, but that messes up your rhyming
scheme.

QeS 'utlh:
> ghopDu' mIl HoQmoH quv ghajbogh 'Iw chun.
> HeghmoHbogh cha' gholpu'vam tuqmeyvaD
> yInnIS[1] bang chang'eng 'e' maq QI'tu' San.
> [1] The English here is "a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life",
in which "take their life" could carry meanings of both birth and suicide.
I couldn't work out a decent wordplay as written, but {yInnIS} "they need
to live" could alternately be read as {yIn nIS} "they disrupt lives".

{nargh yInchaj} "their lives appear/escape"? Just a thought.

QeS 'utlh:
> vangHa'pu' chaH: tIvup! cha' tuqchaj qaD,
> 'ej Heghchajmo' cha' tuq yol ngo' luvan.
> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqayvetlh chuD QeH,

I had trouble understanding that {QeH} was a noun, rather than an adjective
modifying {chuD}. Also, possibly {chuD} is too broad for "parents". It
would also help to put in explicit plural markers.

QeS 'utlh:
> parmaqchaj'e' bejbogh Hegh je wImuch;
> yol Qaw' puq yIn lughanglu'pu'bogh neH,

Good contrast between {ghang} and {van} used two lines above.

QeS 'utlh:
> DaH vaSmajDaq cha' rep lutvam wIruch.[2]
> [2] Though strictly we don't have canon for it, I like using {ruch} in
this way. From the glosses "proceed", "go ahead", "do it", and the sense of
the canon examples we do have, I don't think a transitive sense of "get on
with" (as ?{Qu'lIj yIruch} "get on with your mission!") is a long stretch.

?{Qu'lIj yIruch} looks to me like it's missing a verb. I would write this
as {Qu'lIj yIchav, yIruch!} ?{lutvam wIruch} looks to me like it's missing
something for the same reason. What are we doing with {lut}? {bej}? {ja'}?
{much?}

I interpret {targhlIj yIngagh, yIruch} as {targhlIj yIngagh, [targhlIj
Dangagh 'e'] yIruch}, where the part in [brackets] is implicit. But I could
be wrong in my interpretation.

QeS 'utlh:
> rIn bI'reS, 'ach vay' Qoybe'lu'pu'chugh,
> tuvchugh teSDu', yajmoHjaj muchmaj Dugh.

The original is directed to the watcher, rather than an indefinite person,
and I think it's better if it's kept the same.

> In English:
>
> Two households, both alike in dignity,
> In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
> From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
> Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
> From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
> A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
> Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
> Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
> The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
> And the continuance of their parents' rage,
> Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
> Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
> The which if you with patient ears attend,
> What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140203/ae975867/attachment.html>