tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 11 10:48:09 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: to' nech, 021: {lojmIt yISoQmoH; Hur yItu'.}

At 09:15 2002-04-11 -0500, slapdash wrote:
>[...] but I have to say that some of your glosses are not hitting the 
>mark, so even the accurate Klingon would not be true to the original, IMO.

I think you misunderstand what I'm doing.  I'm not translating the /Oblique 
Strategies/ into Klingon.  I'm translating them into the /original/ Klingon.
That is, I'm trying to produce a Klingon text such that the Eno/Schmidt 
/Oblique Strategies/ reads like a smart, artistic, but at times quite 
interpretive translation of the Klingon.
I mean this to sort of be a demonstration of the feeling one gets from 
reading, say, the Yijing in the original 2500-year-old Chinese, and then 
comparing it to various modern translations.  Most of the time, the 
translation and the original are basically the same.  Sometimes the 
translation gets it backwards.  Sometimes the translation totally misses 
the point, and sometimes it turns something mundane (or totally 
indecypherable) into something quite clever.  In other words, it's 
sometimes the difference that's most interesting, difference in meaning as 
well as in tone.

Sean M. Burke

Back to archive top level