tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 22 11:52:21 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
speech
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: speech
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 14:52:07 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Mon, 22 Nov 93 08:40:41 EST <[email protected]>
>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 08:40:41 EST
>Subject: batlh rInmeH Heghta'wI'pu' Qu' vumnIS yIntaHbogh maH Hoch
>Not being a christian, I thought I should offer my own translation of a
>chosen, non-biblical text. First, I offer the speech in Klingon, then the
>line-by-line translation (and justification of the translation), with a 30
>line gap for those who do not wish to see the translation before they chew on
>it a while):
Wow, that's pretty good! I was impressed mostly by how the character of
the speech seemed to remain in some of the translation.
I dunno... I'm not Christian either, but even as a Jew, I can't say I felt
any rushes of holy ecstasy in translating Jonah...
>chorghmaH Soch ben puH'a'vamDaq wo' chu' chenmoH vavpu'maj
> wo'vetlhDaq tlhab ghajtaH Hoch 'ej potlhtaH Hoch ghot
>"Eighty seven years ago, at this great land, our fathers formed a new empire.
>In that empire, everyone has freedom and all people are important."
>Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a
>new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all
>men are created equal.
>[I realized that "all people are created equal" really means that everyone is
>important, not that everyone is the same. Meanwhile, I feel uncertain about
>whether it should be "Hoch ghot" or "ghot Hoch".]
"vavpu'ma'". I wonder why that causes us so much trouble? "no'ma'" would
probably be better, though less literal. Should also be "luchenmoH". I'd
say "ghotpu' Hoch", "the people's all" (like "my all", etc, for "all of
me"). The plural is optional, for obscure reasons I might put it here, but
it'd work without it, probably. I like that "-taH"s.
> DaH veS'a' wISuvvIS Suv'eghlI' wo'maj
> taHlaHtaH'a' wo'maj vay' wo' raplaw' joq 'e' toblI' noHvam
>"Now, our empire is in the process of fighting itself at the great war. Can
>our empire or any similar (apparently same) empire continue to endure? This
>war is in the process of conclusively testing that."
>Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any
>nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.
>[The 'e' reference to an interrogative is not something that I can remember
>seeing in cannon, but it makes the most sense to me in my attempt to convey
>the meaning of the original text.]
Has to be "wISuvtaHvIS" (-vIS requires -taH); but I'm still not sure of the
sentence as a whole. "Now while we are fighting a great war, our empire
is in the process of fighting itself"... Oh I see. This is a little like
the way Nick and I use "lo'taHvIS" for "using". I'm not sure it's needed
here, though. Maybe just "maSuv'eghlI'" (or "veS'a' wISuv'eghlI'")? The
country doesn't enter into the original, after all. Excellent use of
"-lI'"; it's just the right tense: Lincoln implies that the war *will* end,
determining one way or another the future of the country. It's arguable
whether you can put the war as the object of fighting, but I think it works
fine. The "'e'" on the interrogative seems okay to me at first glance.
> veSvam may'puH'a'Daq maghomlI'
>"We now gather at a great battle-land of this war."
>We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
>[I chose "this" over "that" in order to increase the sense of proximity.]
"Are met" in English sounds like a perfective to me; maybe "maghompu'"
(this is a perfective, indicating something that has happened and is done:
we have met). "This" vs. "that" is not something that carries over well in
all cases; you're justified in using "-vam".
>yInlaHtaHmeH wo'vam Heghta'bogh neghvetlh DImolmeH puHvetlh yoSHomvam
>wIpotlhmoH wIneH
>"We want that we make important this small area of that land for the purpose
>that we bury those soldiers who died for the purpose that this empire can
>continue to live."
>We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for
>those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.
Let's see.... (sorry, I talk about stylistic stuff more than Krankor
would). I don't know that the "-laH" in the first word is necessary; it's
not in the original and you could prabably scrap it even if it were. Good
use of "-ta'" indicating that they died deliberately. It could be argued
that that isn't strictly true, but Lincoln would have said it anyway: makes
a great speech. The "wIneH" looks a little redundant, but it works.
> QaQ Hechghachmaj 'ach puHvam wIpotlhmoHlaHbe' maH'e'
>"Our intention is good, but WE cannot make this area important."
>It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
>But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot
>hallow this ground.
Good use of the "-'e'" suffix. Works just the way you want it.
>potlhtaH yoSvam naDev Suvta'mo' yIntaHbogh SuvwI'pu' yoH naDev Heghta'bogh
>SuvwI'pu' yoH je
>"This place is important because those who fought here: the brave fighters
>who intentionally died here and the brave fighters who continue to live."
>[This could also be translated:] "This place is important because of those
>who fought here who continue to live and those who intentionally died here."
>The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far
>above our poor power to add or detract.
"potlhtaH" is great: it's important continuously. "potlh" would have been
fine, I think, but this lends a sort of permanence to it that Lincoln also
implied. The second "naDev" looks out of place; it makes me expect to see
another "Suvta'mo'" and an "'ej".
> tugh naDev mu'mey wIjatlhta'bogh lij Hoch, 'ach not may'vetlh lIj vay'
>"Soon, everyone will forget the words we said here, but never will anyone
>forget that battle."
>The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can
>never forget what they did here.
"DIjatlhta'bogh", and yes, "-ta'" is great: it will be completed at the
time under consideration. Rather than "lIj Hoch", maybe try "net lIj"? It
doesn't imply "everyone" in the same way, but I don;t think that was the
emphasis of the original.
> batlh rInmeH Heghta'wI'pu' Qu' vumnIS yIntaHbogh maH Hoch
>"All of us who continue to live must work honorably for the purpose that the
>task of the dead be finished."
>It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work
>which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
Good handling of a tricky sentence, but I think it should be
"mayIntaHbogh". Using relative clauses with first- or second-person head
nouns is a tricky business; I know Krankor didn't like the one I had in
Jonah (though maybe for other reasons). It makes sense, when you need it,
though.
>[I leave the last sentence for those more skilled than myself to complete:]
>It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before
>us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for
>which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly
>resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under
>God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by
>the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Ack. That's no picnic...
~mark