tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 04 06:03:22 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Adams Family Motto:

On Feb 3,  5:38pm, Nick NICHOLAS wrote [and charghwI' responds]:
> Subject: Re: Addams Family Motto:
...
> but though I agree with you in general about charghwI''s style, I don't
> about this sentence, with it's tottering, long-distance dependency
> between nucharghta' and luneHbogh. Atypically for him, it is in fact rather
> verbose, and I would suggest instead:
> 
> nucharghqangwI' wISopchu'mo', maQuch.

     I like it! (said with the same zeal as Gomez's "I MISSED!") Actually, I
like the construction, though {-qang-} is a bit weak here, but then you know
that:

> -qang isn't all there is to subjunctives, of course,...

     Would this aspect be improved by {-qu'}?

             nucharghqangqu'wI' wISopchu'mo' maQuch

     I'm caught between my appreciation for its concise construction and my
preference for the slightly more detailed meaning in:

         nucharghta' luneHtaHbogh chaH DISopmo' maQuchqu'

     Yes, it is verbose, but then the original packed a lot of ideas into one
sentence. (Hey, I went from nine English words to five Klingon words, and I'm
too verbose?) My approach to translation tends to be to take the original
text and explode it out, including all the implied pieces and relationships,
then take the Klingon perspective toward picking out the most significant
aspects of this full meaning, then squeezing it back down into words. 

     "We gladly feast on those who would subdue us," is beautifully concise
and rich. The root sentence means, "We eat them," which is missing the point,
entirely. Exploded, it says something like, "With passion and gratitude, we
devour the flesh of anyone who wishes to challenge the freedom of our
spirits. We thereby eliminate the threat and wildly celebrate our revenge."
Of course, that is VERY verbose. The translation must strike a balance
between this kind of verbosity and "We eat them" compression.

     If your suggestion errs (and this is only a question of degree), it does
so by losing accuracy through compression. The subjunctive carries less a
sense of willingness than of desire. Intensive willingness may be considered
similar enough to desire to handle this compression, but we do lose a little
detail. (Sorry, I'm a computer professional, not a linguist, so these
analogies pop up now and then...)

     Anyway, I really like your suggestion. Your point is very much accepted.
Both of our translations contain compromises, though each does a respectable
job of maintaining both the thought behind the sentence and the interlocking
density of relationships among the words and their affixes. They are both
closer to small works of art than to utilitarian results of an algorithm
played its course. This is fitting, since the original sentence was such an
artwork. That is why I was drawn to it.

     I was surprised by the compliments I've received lately. It's great;
just the fuel I need to continue the effort on gathering my resources and
skills for the seminar this summer. I hope to meet some of you then, and I'd
hate to dissappoint anyone. The nice thing about this is that respect for
what I do does not need to cost anyone else respect for what THEY do.

     Speaking of respect, what's up with Krankor these days? I got his "I'm
back" speech and haven't heard from him since.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level