tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 21 17:18:09 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: translation
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: translation
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 20:17:51 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
I can't stand it.
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 00:41:58 -0700 dpNoll
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> "Destroying the Federation is our Honour."
> >> I've tried like this, but I think it's not correct: "Qaw' DIvI' batlh maH"
First of all, destroying the Federation is not our honor.
It is our MISSION. It may be an honorable mission, but it
is not in itself an honor. Success in the mission would be
an honor.
DIvI' wIQaw'meH Qu' quv wItoy'.
> > {batlh maH} is in the wrong order for the intended meaning and as it stands
> > means "we who belong to honour".
No it doesn't. It doesn't mean much of ANYTHING, really,
though you could twist it into, "Honorably we are," which
doesn't really mean all that much, or maybe "We are honor,"
which sounds a lot like Hubris to me, if not gibberish.
> A more sensible interpretation of {batlh maH} would be "we are, with honor".
Okay.
> How about {DIvI' wIQaw' 'e' 'oH batlhmaj'e'}?
Eeeew. The grammar kinda works, but ... ewwwwww.
> Nah, you're right. That'd make 'e' a subject, which it can't be. Oh, well.
>
> Qapla'
> | Daniel Noll
charghwI'