tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 03 08:28:22 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!
- From: "Kenneth Traft" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!
- Date: Sat, 3 Aug 96 13:34:31 UT
Subject:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> >tlhIngan Hol "Bible" 'ay'Daq mughlu'bogh, Dochvam vIlegh. "John 3:16"Daq
> >"believe in him" tu'lu', 'ej {*ghaHDaq Har} ghItlhlu'pu'.
[email protected] writes:
>Dochvam vIghItlhbe'bejqu'! not DIvI' Hol, tlhIngan Hol joq *Bible* vIlaDta'.
> "ghaHDaq Har"mo' jIjatlh, 'ach *Bible* vIqelbe'!
To which I say, I'm sorry. I was looking at Mark Shoulson's response and
didn't realize that the post was originally from Dave Yeung. These messages
don't come to me in order most of the time and because there are so many it is
difficult to go through them all and I missed that one. I'll make sure I have
reference to the original source next time. Your response was to Dave's post
and it was obvious that in that post you did not agree with the use of
<-Daq> in such a manner.
>I think this usage of {-Daq} only makes sense because one will see the idiom
>in it. You say the phrase "believe in" is used in all Indo-European
>languages. Well then, what about, say, Japanese? Suppose someone who spoke
>Japanese learned Klingon.
Perhaps the issue you make is valid and definitely gives credence to the fact
that not all languages follow the same rules. And as we have seen many times
in Klingon this is true as well. The fact that there are similaritiesand that
there is some consistency in most languages does give us cause to speculate.
It is my belief that the TKD was written in a manner that gives rise to such
specualtion and grammar usage.
>Unless "believe in" is a universal human
>linguistic construct, he is not going to understand {ghaHDaq Har}, without
>first referencing an Indo-European language.
Translating Terran languages leaves us with this problem all the time. To
preclude such problems from Klingon has proven time and again impossible.
Klingon was intentionally written as an alien language, but the study of
Terran languages has given conclusions that they are similiar in many logical
ways. It is the Star Trek universe's contention that many of these logical
constructs would appear in alien languages or the Univeral Translator would
have a lot more problems (I would think).
>Unless you can explain what
>other sense {-Daq} is taking in {ghaHDaq Har}, and can convince me that it is
>really usable, I will continue to see it as "He believes at his
>location/inside him," which is nonsensical.
I believe the canonical example (or partial example) from Converstional
Klingon would seem to lend the concept credence:
>Glen's reason for using <-Daq> comes from the reference in Conversation
> Klingon when they referenced to Kahless's spirit within you (I don't have
the
> exact quote sorry), The phrase "within you" was translated <SoHDaq>. Glen
> does not think they were refering to a physical space in this instance.
cha'logh bIquvHa''eghmoH! mu'tlheghvam vIghItlhbe'qu'!
DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'!
I wrote:
> >>You may have to say "<Bible> 'ay' mughta'lu', 'ej 'ay'vamDaq..."
> Glen believes that [email protected]'s translation is correct, but
suggested
> using <'e'> instead of <Dochvam>. Also that Mark made a typo on
<mughlu'ta'>
> (<ta'> is a type 7 suffix and <lu'> is a type 5).
To which [email protected] replied:
>mu'tlheghvam vIghItlhchugh, "Dochvam vIlegh" vIghItlhbe'bej. 'ej ram
>mu'meyvam.
These words may be trivial. Because this board is used as a teaching tool
referencing such things are helpful. It is so easy as you are learning to
pick up "bad habits", especially if you don't know any better. And if you're
learning it is reasonably certain that you won't.