tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 09 09:01:01 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIS chu' Quch
According to David Trimboli:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 10:21 PM
> Subject: Re: DIS chu' Quch
>
>
> >On Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:35:52 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >It doesn't quite make sense to me. I read it as "The year which is
> >> >new and may you enjoy which is happy."
> >>
> >> No, he's absolutely correct. Consider {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh} "The
> tea
> >> that is {SuD} and light" (KGT p.82).
> >
> >He is absolutely correct? Does he really mean, "May you enjoy
> >the year which is happy and new!"? Is the year itself actually
> >intended to be happy? Can a year BE happy? Is it sentient?
>
> I addressed this question, either elsewhere in the message you replied to or
> another one in the same thread. We don't know if a year can "be happy" in
> Klingon. I said this, and then went on to look at the grammar.
>
> And we just don't know. KGT p. 105 has a pretty clear implication that
> {pa'vamDaq jIbIr} means that the speaker is uncomfortable with the
> temperature being as low as it is. But if you touch the speaker, you'll
> find that he is at his normal body temperature, and not suffering from
> hypothermia! The paragraph is aimed at showing that this is NOT an
> idiomatic expression in Klingon. So what exactly is the subject of {bIr}?
> The person or the environment?
In English, and apparently in Klingon, we use the term "be
cold" to refer to either non-sentient items having a low
temperature or to sentient beings feeling discomfort because of
an environment with low temperature. I doubt that, in Klingon,
"be happy" means either for a sentient being to be in a
positive emotional state or also to be a period of time during
which a sentient being is in a happy state. The English is just
too idiomatic for me to expect the same idiom to carry across
into this other langauge.
> Similarly, we don't KNOW that {Quch} can't be stretched in a like manner.
> I'm with you in thinking that it probably doesn't, but I'm not saying it
> CANNOT, and so I voiced my opinion on the subject and then let it rest, to
> get on with the grammar.
I don't think we do beginners service by allowing them to so
easily dismiss our valid concerns about idiomatic use of verbs.
> >I think we need to say what we mean instead of just translating
> >words. Yes, we say, "Happy New Year!", but what we mean is, "May
> >you be happy in this New Year!" I don't care if the grammar is
> >correct. The message is gibberish.
>
> And since others were giving all sorts of alternatives simultaneously to my
> message, and since I've been telling people how to translate "Happy New
> Year" for several years now, I just left it to others to give their
> alternatives. I didn't feel like repeating them. I was not accepting the
> message, just the grammar.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 98021.1
charghwI'