[Tlhingan-hol] SItlh quv

[John R. Harness]

I wasn't going to reply to the thread as BG because it wasn't labeled KLBC
and because the OP isn't a newcomer to the list.

But since my role has been invoked:

I think that the error QeS mentions is in the first line. Section 5.4 of
the dictionary states that, unlike other adverbials, {neH} follows the verb
it modifies (to trivialize the action) OR it can follow a noun, in which
case it is translated as "only, alone."

I think that the sense of the original English of the first line is that
"there is passion only/alone." So, the phrase should be something like {veS
neH tu'lu'}.

Concerning "passion," surely your reasoning with "war" is reasonable. I've
done some poking around the dictionary and can't quite find a more
reasonable answer myself. I wonder if {QeH} "anger" would work, a very
Sith-like strong emotion, but it is a stretch and implies a lot less than
"passion."

It makes me wonder (and ask to "the room"): How DO we talk about emotion
and feelings, generally? There are verbs for expressing certain emotions,
but I'm not finding much that is broader or more general. How would we say
"She is feeling a strong emotion"? ((Sidebar -- {Qom} looks like it has
great poetic possibilities here!}}




> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:24:51 +1000
> From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh at hotmail.com>
> To: "tlhingan-hol at kli.org" <tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] SItlh quv
> Message-ID: <BAY179-W85EC471C35B70D1660B1C8AA030 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> ghItlhpu' qunnoQ, jatlh:
> > DavHam 'oH roj'e',neH veS tu'lu'
> > veSmo' HoS vISuq
> > HoSmo' HoS'a' vISuq
> > HoS'a'mo' yay vISuq
> > yaymo' mIrmeywIj lughorlu'
> > tagha' HoS Hurghqu'mo' jItlhab
> > peace is a lie,there is only passion
> > through passion i gain strength
> > through strength i gain power
> > through power i gain victory
> > through victory my chains are broken
> > the force shall free me
>
> I'm not going to comment on the grammar right now, leaving such matters to
> our BG, except to say that I can see only one single error in your entire
> translated passage. majQa'!
>
> vISIvmoHlu': chay' pIm SItlh quvqoqvam'e', tlhIngan quvna''e' je? tlhIngan
> tIgh'e' Delqu'law' je mu'meyvam. chaq batlh luSaHbe'law'mo' SItlh
> quvHa''eghmoH; quvchaj'e' neH luSaHlaw', batlh luqelbe'law'.
>
> QeS 'utlh
>


> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:58:36 +0200
> From: qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com>
> To: "tlhingan-hol at kli.org" <tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] SItlh quv
> Message-ID:
>         <CAP7F2cJa3x=ZZfmCd7m6vjc1ECgFeH7=
> q_L7YZ_e_0z9YdDLNw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> > I'm not going to comment on the grammar right now, leaving such matters
> to our BG
>
> the "leaving corrections to the BG" is becoming one of the best jokes I
> have heard in a while.. but since this thread isn't for the purpose of
> commenting on the BG, I will refrain myself from writing anything more on
> the subject.
>
> qun
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151128/2b6bb050/attachment.html>