tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 21 14:40:40 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: I think, therefore I am.
- From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: I think, therefore I am.
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:39:59 -0400
> Now my translation:
>
> jIQubmo' jItaHbej.
>
> It s almost the same, I know, but what makes me wonder is that they
> used "jIH" instead of giving "taH" a prefix. Also, why not separate the
> two words?
> Additionally, I added "bej" because I think that the part "I am" means
> that one obviously is(exists), or otherwise there would be no thought.
> (I at first wanted to use "ba' " - "obviously", but AFAIK it means
> "obvious to the listener", which is not what I wanted.
My prefered translation would be: jIQub vaj jIH.
What you didn't isn't exactly *wrong*, but I think it is suboptimal.
Let me explain:
The verb taH doesn't really mean "exist" or "be", despite the famous
"to be or not to be" (taH pagh taHbe') example. It really means "to
endure", "to go on", basically to *continue* to exist. In the "to be
or not to be", Hamlet is talking about suicide or not, that is, continuing
his life or not, so taH is a reasonable usage. But in the Descartes
quote, there's nothing about it that has to do with continuousness.
Descartes is saying "I know that I exist at this moment because I am
sensing myself thinking." He is dealing with fundamental epistemology,
not the continuous circumstance of his existence. Therefore I think
taH is a poor fit here (and for the same reason I don't like the -taH
suffix on jIH).
So, what this all means is that jIQubmo' jItaHbej means "I definitely
[will] endure because I think." This makes it sound like it is the
thinking which is *keeping you alive*.
I could certainly see a -ba' or -bej suffix on jIH. I would be
quite content with jIQub vaj jIHbej. I agree that -bej is superior
to -ba' in this instance.
--Captain Krankor