tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 12 12:32:59 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: translation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 04:42:18 -0700
>From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
>"A.Appleyard" <[email protected]> writes:
>\ From: [email protected] (Marc Hardy) wrote (Subject: translation):-
>\
>\ > ... How may I translate this sentence?: "Destroying the Federation is our
>\ > Honour." I've tried like this, but I think it's not correct: "Qaw' DIvI'
>\ > batlh maH" ...
>\
>\ {Qaw' DIvI'} <would> be correct if all verbs X (including {Qaw'}) could be
>\ used as verbal nouns "the act or condition of X'ing";
>No, because the order is wrong. Even if *{Qaw'} were a noun meaning
>destruction, "destruction of the Federation" or "the Federation's destruction"
>would be *{DIvI' Qaw'}.
Right.
>\ {DIvI' wIQaw' 'e' batlhmaj} = "That we destroy the Federation, is our
>\ honour"; but how to make it clear that the destruction is neither actual nor
>\ likely but merely hypothetical or a wish?
>That sentence no verb. {DIvI' wIQaw' 'e' 'oH batlhmaj'e'} is what you were
>trying to do here, I think. I don't think the original sentence requires
>that the speaker/honor-possessor do the destroying. The whole construction
>feels very un-Klingon to me. How about {DIvI' Qaw'lu'. maquvmeH 'e'
>wIneH}? "In order that we be honored, we want the Federation to be
>destroyed".
Somehow "DIvI' wIQaw' 'e' 'oH batlhmaj'e'" doesn't work. I don't like the
sound of "'e' 'oH..."; something is weird about using a sentence-as-object
in a copulative sentence like that.
Part of the problem is getting to the root of the English sentence in the
first place. "Our honor is destroying the Federation..." what does that
mean? Does that mean that destroying the Federation makes us honorable? I
have trouble pinning down how "honor" and "destroying the Federation" can
be equated, can be the same thing. I think it needs to be analyzed more.
It really sounds like it's closer to "DIvI' wIQaw'mo' maquv" or "DIvI'
wIQaw'chugh maquv."
>\ Would {DIvI' wIQaw'jaj 'e' batlhmaj} be correct or suitable?
>This sentence still no verb.
>\ Otherwise, as I said before, it would be useful if Marc revealed an "unreal
>\ or hypothetical" verb suffix like the Ancient Greek "an" or "ken".
>And as many of us have said before, so what? Lots of things *would* be useful
>(there's that useful English conditional tense again, wouldn't it be
>nifty if Klingon had one), but they AREN'T THERE. So forget about
>them, make do with what we *do* have, and look for *internal*
>inconsistencies to ask Dr. Okrand about - things that don't
>quite make sense as given when compared only to the rest of the
>language, not when compared to other languages. All of this
>"Wouldn't it be nice if . . ." speculation/whining doesn't accomplish anything.
Not every language has these features you wish for, A.Appleyard, and
somehow they manage. Why can't we figure that Klingon, too, can manage,
and deal with it on that level?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMg+G0sppGeTJXWZ9AQGpzwL8CqP6NXkBNQ6KorxYp9o6bVfG6EfPvGqh
2XGZ/2nXwwD6sVrb0vDEGYN0SIjC68ySDnH186X/xvuL7JDLADvBkZ9ePL0kzUuQ
XOE6GHPj9XVyk7CZF6EBSeo2luwq8Wza
=BinE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----