tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 07 07:10:59 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLIC: UserFriendly translation
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: RE: KLIC: UserFriendly translation
- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:08:05 -0500
ja' charghwI':
>I can't stop myself...
I'm glad you didn't; in the years I've been on the list, I've always
appreciated the approach you take to recasting English thoughts in
translation.
When I looked at your third panel, I saw that I didn't say what I thought
I did. I suppose it's to be expected; I knew I wasn't ready to begin
translations yet. Your third pane was much less convoluted than mine.
I do have a grammar/style question regarding your translation, for my own
education:
>> -Panel 3-
>> ...although the sound of a single closet door opening and closing
>> punctuates the stunned silence.
>
>'ach poSDI' Sut polmeH pa'Hom lojmIt 'ej ghIq SoQDI', tamchu'taH Hoch 'e'
>qagh lojmItvam chuS.
Question: Is the <'ej> before <ghIq> something you chose stylistically, or
is it more for clarity (or required)?
I don't have HolQeD 8:3 with me, but I'd just assumed that since the
adverbial in this case implies a temporal sequence (thus joining the
clauses), the conjunction isn't needed. In my mind, it's much like how
Okrand uses <vaj>:
<nuHlIj DawIvpu', vaj yISuv> You have chosen your weapon, so fight! (TKW
p.151)
<bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh> Surrender or die! (TKD p.170)
I'd assumed that since the adverbial expresses a causal relationship
between the clauses, the conjunction was omitted in normal use. My canon
collection isn't complete, but I don't see an example where <vaj> *is*
used with a conjunction, actually. There's only the one case where a
comma is used to separate clauses.
So, is my assumption regarding <vaj> in error, or is expanding that
assumption to <ghIq> erroneous, or what? I'm not trying to pick nits, but
I blinked when I saw that construction. If I've been living with
incorrect assumptions regarding grammar, I'd like to correct them as
quickly as possible.
Jaes