tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 14 19:04:48 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghorghvaD 'oH?
ja'pu' [email protected]:
>I don't try to translate pithy, cryptic text someone else wrote.
>If you want to describe the full meaning of "When is it for?" and the context
>in which it will be used, I'll be happy to comment on it.
ja' "Sean M. Burke" <[email protected]>:
>Aw, poor thing. Am I being insufficiently Cartesian for you?
bImughmeH, bIHuvnIS. mughmeH mIwlIj luqel latlhpu' DaneHchugh,
bIHuvnISchu'qu'.
If you're going to invite comments on your translations, you do have to be
excrutiatingly clear about why you choose certain phrasing. Especially
when such phrasing does not follow the rules of Klingon grammar.
>Do I need to
>diagram my sentences first? Or are you not going to give me a gold star
>unless I start out with {vIghro' "Siamese" vIghaj. "Fang" vIpong. qan 'ej
>qu'. ghewmey tlha' 'ej Qong}?
bItaghmeH mu'tlheghmeyvam DalIngchugh, Hov Hum DaHevbe'qu'. tlha'Ha''egh
mu'meylIj. vIghro''e' Daghajmo', QavnIS <vIghro'>.
If you start out that way, you get no awards. You merely get a calm
correction of your word order: it should be {Siamese vIghro' vIghaj}. What
you have is a kind of cat, not a kind of Siamese. See, for example, {DenIb
Qatlh}, {verengan Ha'DIbaH}, {reghuluS 'Iwghargh}, and even {tlhIngan Hol}.
I hope the irony of this is not lost on you, and that you don't claim your
error was intentional. A similar mistake in word order on my part seven
years ago taught me that simple sentences were *not* beneath my dignity.
Many years of experience since then has convinced me that translation of
other people's works is an advanced task which should not be approached
until one is capable of extended conversation in both source and target
languages. You've not yet shown yourself to have that ability.
bISagh 'e' wIlajlaHpa', laHlIj DatobnIS. Datobta'be'. Damugh 'e' yImev
jay', 'ej yIQumqu'choH.
>Contextlessness is a kind of context, and crypticness is a kind of
>clarity. If you dislike this sort of semiotics, too bad, go back to
>reading the Z39.50 specs.
wejpuH. bIlugh 'e' DaHarbej'a'? If you'll stop amusing yourself with this
sort of nonsense, you'll get a lot better reception.
-- ghunchu'wI'