tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 07 11:58:27 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Esther I 1-9
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Esther I 1-9
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 14:58:15 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Marnen Laibow-Koser's message of Mon, 6 Dec 93 21:36:16 EST <[email protected]>
Repost of my comments...
>From shoulson Mon Dec 6 15:33:58 EST 1993
To: [email protected]
In-reply-to: Marnen Laibow-Koser's message of Fri, 3 Dec 93 16:56:14 EST <[email protected]>
Subject: Esther I 1-9
>From: [email protected] (Marnen Laibow-Koser)
>Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 16:56:14 EST
>Mark E. Shoulson says:
>:
>:
>: >From: [email protected] (Marnen Laibow-Koser)
>: >Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 19:02:49 EST
>:
>:
>: >2. *SuSa* veng jenDaq ta'quSDajDaq ba'pu'Di' ta' *'aHaSweroS*,
>: >3. qaStaHviS che'ghachDaj DiS wejDich yaSpu'DajvaD bo'Dijnuvpu'DajvaD je 'uQ
>'a
>: '
>:
>: As I recall, it's a banquet for all his officers and servants. Maybe
>: yaSpu'Daj/chuQunDaj toy'wI'pu'Daj je?
>I don't have the text handy right now, but I think it said "officials and
>courtiers".
Yeah... looks like I was too hard on you in a lot of places here. I was
probably sore that you scooped my efforts on Esther. Looks like you're the
victim of someone else's translation efforts which don't measure up to my
(possibly unfair and unrealistic and who asked me anyway) standards. Well,
the word in Hebrew is "servants", as in those who work for him. In this
case, courtiers is not an unreasonable reading, as it probably means
"serving the king" in a broader sense than making his coffee.
>:
>: > chenmoHpu' *'aHaSweroS*. SaHpu' *perSiya* *meDiya* je mangghom yaSpu',
>: > chuQun, yoS'a' che'wi'pu' je,
>:
>: Me, I'd leave off the king's name here, since it's not mentioned in the
>: original: it's just [he] made (the pronoun is implicit in the verb, like in
>: Klingon).
>I think the translation I was using had the name explicit.
Grumble. I'm gonna have to read more translations. Which one were you using?
>:
>: >4. 'ej qaStaHviS jajmey law', qaStaHviS biD DiS, wo'Daj mipghach DojghachDaj
>: > Dunghach je 'angpu'.
>:
>: bID DIS? So a Persian year was just 360 days long? I'm sorry, I shouldn't
>: be correcting like this, but I'm afraid that in the way I do things anyway,
>: especially when you're translating something like the Bible, which is
>: well-known, you should do your best to say what *it* says and not recast
>: it. The text says one hundred and eighty days, and there's a perfectly
>: good way to say that in Klingon, isn't there?
>Sure there is. The translation I used said "half a year". You want >wa'vatlh
>chorghmaH jajmey<, you got it! ;>
Now why didn't *they* use "one hundred and eighty days" (or nine score days
or whatever)? It's not like the Hebrew didn't have a way to say "half a
year"; it just wasn't what they wanted to say.
>:
>: >5. rintaHDi' wani'vam, *SuSa* veng jenDaq Qongbogh loDpu' HochvaD ta' qachHo
>m
>: > Du'HomDaq Soch jaj yupma' chenmoHpu' ta'. potlhwi'vaD potlhbe'wi'vaD je
>: > chenmoHpu'.
>:
>: not sure what the "-taH" adds on rIntaHDI'. And it's the days that are
>: over, right? The word you translate here as yupma' is the same one you
>: called an 'uQ'a' before. I suppose either one is okay, but you should be
>: consistent. Your breaking out of the "great and small" into a separate
>: sentence is creative, and I can't really fault it; it keeps things from
>: being really incomprehensible.
>I think you're right about the >-taH<; >rinDi'< or >rintaHviS< would be
>better
>As for what's finished, I believe the text I was using said "when all this was
>over" or some such. (It also had "banquet" where I put >'uQ'a'< and "party"
>where I put >yupma'<. There's method in my madness! ;> )
Yeah, and apparently to mine. Go figure a translator's mind. The sad part
is that my translations will seem equally screwy to someone.
>: Not sure what "ghajnIS ta'" is for, but it's probably a reasonable
>: interpretation.
>"As befits a king".
That's pretty good, the Hebrew has something idiomatic like "according
to/like the hand of the/a king". Close enough.
>: >9. ta' *'aHaSweroS* ta' juHDaq be'pu'vaD yupma' chenmoHpu' be'ta' *vaStiy*
>: >je.
>:
>: Maybe ta'be' for queen: king's wife. Likely sexist, but perhaps it's
>: correct in this case (though if I recall my midrash correctly it isn't: it
>: was Vashti who had the royal blood, being of the family of Nebuchadnezzar,
>: and Ahasuerus used to be a horse-washer. Note also that from Ahasueros'
>: point of view, Vashti is always called "Vashti the Queen", while from her
>: POV it's "Queen Vashti". But I digress.)
>Could be. I think I was influenced by Japanese "jo-oosama", which means "woman
>king".
P'raps. Also note that "Daughter" is "child-woman" and not "woman-child"
(puqbe' is correct). Appositive compounds?
~mark