tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 17 15:52:24 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
re: Easter Translation
On Mon, 17 Apr 1995, Kardasi wrote:
[...]
> i took the verb "to rise"("to resurrect") and gave it a Klingon equivalent
> >>yInqa'<< -- to resume living. since the subject, QrISt, has completed the
> action (grammatically, he's no longer in the process of resurrecting), i added
> >>-ta'<< or >>-pu'<<, assuming a "has" trans. To capture the theological
> point that QrISt rose according to his own prophecy and those of others, i
> narrowed it down to >>-ta'<<.
> In other words, I'm not so much trying to say that he continues to live
> again, but rather that he has completed a specific action -- the resumption of
> life (which would then implicitly allow him to continue living now,
> >>yIntaH<<.)
>
> Does >>yInqa'ta'<< at all capture the sentiment described above? Or in
> working backwards have i still managed to miss the subtleties of the Klingon
> usage? Given that frame of reference, would >>yInqa'ta'<< still imply that
> QrISt has finished living again (as opposed to resuming living)? If so, would
> >>DaH<< fix it? I get Eng and German nuances fairly well, i think; but i'm
> still just a wee baby, as far as tlh-H goes. Again, comments and correction
> are perfectly welcome (I want to get it right!); and thanks for putting up
> with this rather long-winded commentary.
I think the choice of whether to use the perfective largely depends on
which verb you use.
If you wanted to literally say "He has risen" then you could say
{Hu'ta'} or to be more specific {molvo' Hu'ta'} (He has risen from the
grave). Here, the perfective {-ta'} indicates that the act of
"getting up" or "rising" is completed and that it was done deliberately.
If I say {vISopta'} (I have eaten) this means the process of eating is
complete and I have stopped eating. The problem with saying {yInta'}
(he has lived) is that it indicates that the act of living has been
completed, and he has stopped living, i.e. he is dead.
With respect to {yInqa'ta'}, I'm inclined to translate this as
"He has lived again" and not "He has resumed living."
The former would indicate: He has lived, he died, he has lived again, and
now he is dead.
The latter implies: He has lived, he died, now he has resumed living.
I'm not inclined to accept the latter translation. I think
{yInqa'taH} (He continues to live again) would fit the meaning of the
latter better.
This is, however, an interesting grammatical question and I wouldn't mind
hearing from the Grammarians or the Ex-Beginners' Gammarian on this one.
> William ([email protected])
yoDtargh