tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 03 08:10:03 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - attempt at translation, v 1.1
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - attempt at translation, v 1.1
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:09:40 -0400
-----Original Message-----
>On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, David Trimboli wrote:
>
>>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>>>One can take "concise" too far. In written communication, {Dochvam nuq}
>>>seems a bit out of place, something along the lines of "whatsit?" When
>>>speaking, many imperfectly grammatical "shortcuts" are accepted without
>>>complaint, but I think written text should be held to a higher standard.
>>
>>I was under the under the impression that {Dochvam nuq} was a
grammatically
>>correct way to say this, not an incorrect but accepted shortcut. Perhaps
>>Voragh will be so kind as to repost the appropriate passage from Okrand's
>>post on the subject.
>
>************************************************************************
>From: [email protected]
>Newsgroups: msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand
>Date: December 12, 1996
>Subject: What do you think?
>
>(2) You suggested translating "What is your favorite month?" as:
> jarlIj qaq nuq?
>This one's a little easier to deal with. Your sentence literally means
>"What is your preferable month?" The basic syntax is correct. Question
>words (in this case, nuq "what?") function the same way pronouns do in
>questions with "to be" in the English translations. Thus, the question
>yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel the statement yIH 'oH
>"It is a tribble" (where yIH is "tribble" and 'oH is "it").
>*************************************************************************
Right. So we see that {Dochvam nuq} is a grammatically correct way to ask
this, and it's not a shortcut.
>>In English, and probably in many other languages, the written word is more
>>formal and scrutinized than the spoken word (unless you frequent chat
>>rooms). However, we don't *know* anything about written Klingon, except
>>what some of the characters look like. We have no way to tell if written
>>Klingon is more or less formal than spoken Klingon.
>>
>>Our Klingon text simulates Klingon speech, not Klingon writing. What you
>>say is what you write. If you are taking a shortcut when you *say* it,
>>you'd better write that shortcut down just as you said it. Who knows what
>>{pIqaD} does? Maybe written, it looks like {Dochvam 'oH nuq'e'}, but when
>>the same sentence is spoken, it sometimes comes out as {Dochvam nuq}.
>>Perhaps there's a unique way to write {Dochvam nuq} in {pIqaD}.
>
>You're right, we don't know what written Klingon *looks* like, colloquial
or
>formal. Is {pIqaD} alphabetic, syllabic, ideographic, or a mixture of
these?
>For that matter, is there more than one way to write it, depending on the
>purpose and intended audience (like modern Japanese or ancient Egyptian)?
>Trek graphic designer Okuda refuses to commit himself. But however it's
>written, presumably Okrand's transcription does represent what the text
>*sounds* like when read aloud by a literate Klingon, like science officer
>Maltz.
Or not. Someone reading aloud something in English will sound different
than someone speaking English in conversation. For all we know, Klingon may
do the same thing. Or not. I don't trust the presumption you have made.
>BTW, we do have examples of more formal Klingon: the brief texts on the
>SkyBox cards, which so often give us trouble as they are written in a more
>complex style than the elementary examples in TKD or CK, or even the more
>intermediate level PK and TKW.
Same problem: it's not in {pIqaD}, so we don't know what level of formality
it's supposed to represent. Just because it would be in a formal context in
English doesn't mean that's how Klingons would do it. What if Klingons are
only formal when singing? What if there is no formal modern Klingon, and
{no' Hol} does this instead. My only point is that we don't have any
knowledge of the link between speech and {pIqaD}.
SuStel
Stardate 98589.0