tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 07 16:27:19 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: *Esquire magazine*Daq tlhIngan Hol vIlaD!


On Mon, 6 Feb 1995, William H. Martin wrote:

> I think the perfective is a mistake here, once again used to
> represent what was intended as a common past tense, and I think
> it would be better to say {puqloDDaj neH nob ghaH}, since {wa'
> puqloDDaj} could easily mean "one of his sons" instead of "his
> only son". I also think this is an expansion of the verb {Har},
> since the Christian use of the verb "believe" is rather
> strange. I think the original is something like, "and whosoever
> believes in him" and I defy ANYBODY to explain what that means
> in plain, secular English. As a verb, it is mystical and
> symbolic, having little to do with the normal meanings of the
> verb "believe".

qaDlIj vIlaj.  I believe in the original Greek, the word is <pisteyo>, 
which simply means "to believe (in)", "have faith (in)", "to have confidence 
(in someone or something)" or "to entrust (something to another)".  I 
rather like ~mark's suggestion to translate it as {voq}.

> This doesn't mean I want to be involved in KBTP. To be honest,
> I don't believe that particular work should have ever been
> translated into English, given that many of the English words
> used there were never intended to convey the ideas there
> assigned to them. "Believe" is just one example. It was
> similarly translated into Cherokee, which required even MORE
> twisting of existing words beyond the bounds of their original
> meaning. Now, going to Klingon...

Theological interpretation aside, I think that if they translate the 
plain meaning of the words of the original texts, they could probably 
come up with a decent translation.  Considering the numerous languages 
the Bible has been translated into, I'm sure they could do no worse with 
Klingon.

> charghwI'

yoDtargh

Back to archive top level