tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 06 20:12:02 2014

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Canon and feelings for translating be-verbs with"there"

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh ([email protected]) 

<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>I agree here, though there’s reasoning not stated yet.</div><div><br></div><div>Okrand didn’t want Klingon to have the verb “to be”, so he created mechanisms to work around it. The adjectival verbs were one tool. The use of pronouns as verbs was a second tool. {tu’lu’} is a third tool. So, using adjectival tools with {tu’lu’} is doubling up your “to be” replacements. It’s not a job that needs to be done twice.</div><div><br></div><div>You use {tu’lu’} for things like “There are Klingons speaking in the room.” {pa’Daq jatlh tlhIngan tu’lu’}. “One finds Klingons speaking in the room.” Typical English translation uses “are”. Klingon uses “discover”. Same meaning root, but totally different word choice, like a different language, instead of like an encoding of the original language.</div><br><div>
<div><div>lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh</div><div>Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably</div></div><div><br></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>On Apr 6, 2014, at 10:10 PM, Elizabeth Lawrence &lt;<a href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">I would certainly prefer to see the Klingon sentences you used as examples over the same sentences with a tu'lu' on the end. &nbsp;I would want tu'lu' if there were no stative verbs, if the emphasis was on the finding (though in that case, -lu' might well not fit), or with stative verbs where the meaning with and without "there is" is not equivalent.<div>
<br></div><div>For example, for <b>law' Iw'</b> "Blood is abundant." and "There is a lot of blood." convey the same meaning in different styles. &nbsp;For <b>Doq paq</b>&nbsp;"The book is red." and "There is a red book." don't have the same semantic content.I would not translate <b>Doq paq</b>&nbsp;as "There is a red book."</div>
<div><br></div><div>As for what translation I would use in your examples, I wouldn't have a problem with someone else's use of either, but which I would use would depend on my intent. &nbsp;If I was trying to translate colloquial Klingon to colloquial English, I might well prefer the "There is" translations, but if I was trying to convey in English the feel of colloquial Klingon, I would choose the more direct translations.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For your beginner course, you might want to include a couple of examples with both the very direct and more colloquial translations, to help give students a sense of the kinds of rephrasing they will have to do when they are translating their English ideas into Klingon sentences.</div>
<div><br></div><div>be''etlh</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Robyn Stewart <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">&gt; law' 'Iw. - Blood is abundant. = There's a lot of blood.<br>
&gt; puS Soj. - Food is sparse. = There's not much food.<br>
<br>
&gt; does anyone feel that 'Iw law' tu'lu' is necessary in order to use<br>
&gt; that translation. Does anyone prefer 'Iw law' tu'lu'<br>
&gt; for that thought and think puS Soj is stilted?<br>
<br>
Are we looking for a /translation/, or a secret decoder ring phrase<br>
substitution?<br>
<br>
</div>Qov&gt; (My stupid mail program doesn't handle attributed text properly).<br>
Qov&gt; We're looking for a translation that, when presented in a dialogue for<br>
beginners, will not make any of the experts complain that it is poor form,<br>
or teaching the beginners incorrectly.<br>
<div class=""><br>
&gt; To me, [law' 'Iw] is about the blood being abundant.<br>
&gt; ['Iw law' tu'lu'] is about the fact that "one discovers" much blood.<br>
<br>
</div>Qov&gt; We know that tu'lu' is an idiom indicating the presence of something,<br>
akin to Spanish hay, French il y a, and Russian есть. We have much canon to<br>
support "there is" being a natural translation.<br>
<div class=""><br>
What is the focus in the story being told?<br>
<br>
</div>Qov&gt; The parents are complaining about the mess the kids are making by<br>
fighting with knives in the house, but the real focus is use of the stative<br>
verb law'. I want to ensure that when I write &lt;law' 'Iw&gt; that experienced<br>
speakers will see a well-formed Klingon sentence and feel that "there is a<br>
lot of blood" is an acceptable translation.<br>
<div class=""><br>
&gt; It's the same idea: &nbsp;"verb X" which should strictly be translated as<br>
&gt; "X verbs" becomes "There is X verbing."<br>
<br>
This could fall into how we often joke about the wordiness of English.<br>
<br>
</div>Qov&gt; Yes. But I want to present natural-sounding translations.<br>
<div class=""><br>
&gt; I don't expect anyone is going to object to such translations, but I<br>
&gt; have been twitching for fifteen years every time I see ghopHomDu'<br>
&gt; translated as "small hands" in the postal course, so I want to make<br>
&gt; sure this doesn't irk anyone.<br>
<br>
I cringe every time someone uses -'a' and -Hom to denote simply "big" and<br>
"small".<br>
Example, a crown is not necessarily big.<br>
<br>
</div>Qov&gt; That was my point. The existing postal course, created about 15 years<br>
ago, not by me, used the suffixes this way. I aim to avoid producing<br>
anything that makes others cringe or twitch.<br>
<div class=""><br>
I can understand how using "there's..." when teaching beginners could cause<br>
some confusion. &nbsp;When I study a new language, I want to see a choppy<br>
word-for-word substitution so I can learn what each part of the sentence<br>
actually means. &nbsp;How do you learn vocabulary from actual usage if everyone<br>
keeps throwing in extra words.<br>
But... I have also seen many ignorant/arrogant people that have never<br>
studied a language make fun of Klingon because the translations were given<br>
as choppy word-for-word instead of a more colloquial form.<br>
<br>
</div>Qov&gt; The intended audience is the serious student of Klingon, so I am not<br>
overly worried about choppiness. I will be sure to make that point. Thank<br>
you.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-- DloraH<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol"; target="_blank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol"; target="_blank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br><a href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a><br>http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level