tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 26 16:23:40 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KBTP: John 8:1-11

Hu'tegh! nuq ja' joel peter anderson jay'?

=pIn tIn (aka Glen Proechel) asked if I'd pass the following on to the
=Internet group.  

I suppose this proves that I should get my _Mark_ to Glen as quickly as

=This famous story, not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts,

In fact, the consensus as I understand it is that it's an interpolation
from the non-canon (and now mostly lost) Judaeo-Christian Gospel of the
Hebrews. I actually left out all not strictly canon bits of Mark (such
as the end of chapter 16).

=Note that I use Latin proper nouns and do not transliterate.  

Oh. Now this is interesting. I use Greek proper nouns, and I do transliterate.
The project won't actually blow up if we agree to disagree.

=The suffixes, however, are Klingon.  

And if the loaned stems aren't distinguished from the Klingon suffixes, with
the *'s I used (which are meant to correspond to italics), then Glen is just
asking for trouble.

='Nobody' is expressed by vay' tu'lu'be'.  i.e. There isn't anybody.  

I see no reason not to use "pagh".

=Notice the word 'to throw' is derived from ' to cause to fly'.  

No. This should clearly be "bach".

=   leghchoHpu'.  He began to see.  i.e. He looked up.  

Not at all. "Look up" is a directional; if any -choH is involved, it's 
"bejchoH"; people can be seeing before they look up.

=The question of the older men leaving first also was a bit of a problem.
= loDpu' qan law': the older men (as it would be expressed in a
=law'-puS construction) is ambiguous because loDpu' qanlaw' (written as
=one word instead of two) has the sense of the "apparently old men."

Tut tut, Glen. Read your TKD: adjectives can't have a -law' suffix.

=Hence the emphatic -qu' in qanqu' 'the very old men' seemed the most
=Klingon way to go.  

Obviously. But as I indicate, there's no reason not to translate "presbu'teroi"
as "elders", "qup".

=Note the translation of Gospel as lut QaQ 

I've used De' QaQ. Euagge'lion is Good News, and News corresponds to De' rather
than lut.

='ach Olivetusmey HuDDaq ghoSpu' Jesus.  qaStaHvIS po 'eq chIrgh
='elqa'pu' ghaH.  ghaHDaq ghoSpu' Hoch 'ej ba'choHpu' 'ej
=ghojchoHmoHpu' ghaH.

I said "*'olIv* naH HuD", figuring Klingons would borrow terms from "Fed
Standard", and qualify them with classifiers: "Mountain of the 'Oliv' fruit".
The "-pu'"'s are pluperfects, and should be expunged from the text; Mark,
have you written about this in HolQeD yet?

=     Doch Hat ta'ta'bogh be' tu'lu'pu'. be'vam luqempu' ghItlhwI'pu'
=Pharisaeuspu' je 'ej ghom botlhDaq be'vam luQammoHta'.

Translating "a woman in adultery" as "Doch Hat ta'ta'bogh be'" is so oblique
as to be entirely useless. I've translated adultery as "tlhoghvaD tlhIv",
and this is what I think should be used.

=     "ghojmoHwI'," luja'pu'. "nga'chuqtaHvIS be'vam loD Huj je
=wItu'pu' 'ej loDnalDaj ghaHbe' loD'e'.  chutDaq naghmey wIlo'-
=taHvIS be'pu' mIgh wIHoH nura' Moses. DaH nuq Daja'?" lutobmeH Dochvam
=lutlhobpu', lupummeH vay' lunejtaHmo'.

The Greek says "They say to him, 'Teacher, this woman...'". There is every
reason why the Klingon should follow this, rather than the interrupted
and not-quite-grammatical English pattern used here. The text says "This woman
has been caught red-handed commiting adultery (moikheuome'ne:)" loD Huj
certainly doesn't mean "a man other than her husband" --- it means "a wierdo",
and the obvious translation is "tlhoghDajvaD tlhIvtaHvIS/ tlhoghDaj 
quvHa'taHvIS". You're saying "we kill an evil woman using stones inside the
law; Moses commanded us this". chutDaq is obviously in the wrong place; it
belongs before nura', and "'e'" belongs between chutDaq and nura'. The
Greek says "such women" --- better translated here as "mutvam be'pu'".

=     SIH'eghpu' Jesus 'ej nItlhDaj lo'taHvIS, puHDaq ghItlhpu'.  'ach
=lutlhobataHDI', QamchoHpu' ghaH 'ej ja'pu': "not yem rIntaHbogh
=botlhrajDaq vay' tu'lu'chugh, vaj nagh wa'DIch puvmoHjaj nuvvam." vaj
=SIH'eghqa'pu' 'ej puHDaq ghItlhqa'pu'.  SoQvam Qoypu'DI' ghom,
=mejchoHpu' loDpu' qanqu' 'ej tlha'pu' latlhpu'.  vaj mej rIntaH Hoch.
=rInDI' Hoch, nIteb ratlhpu' Jesus be' je.  be' leghchoHpu' Jesus 'ej
=jatlhpu': "be' nuqDaq chaH?  DuqIchbogh vay' tu'lu'be''a'?  jangpu'be'"
=: "vay' tu'lu'be' joHwI'." jangpu' Jesus: "'ej qaqIchQo' je JIH.  yImej
='ej yIyemqa'Qo'."

The Greek says "e'graphen", which is "ghItlhtaH", not "ghItlhpu'". Not that
-pu' belongs here at all. The "if there is someone sinless" phrase is
mangled. It's best not to use "yem rIntaH" in a relative clause; botlhrajDaq
definitely doesn't belong there (it must precede the whole relative clause,
which is "tu'lu'chugh"'s object. I'd translate this as "ghaHDaq nagh bachjaj
not yembogh wa' tlhIH". (I'm using wa' tlhIH for "one of you"; I don't think
this is too bold.) Why *vaj* SIH'eghqa'pu'? The Greek has only an "and" (kai).
Again, it's ghItlhtaH. For "one by one", I'd say "wa' wa' je", or "wa'chaj
Hoch" (each of their 'ones' (individuals)). "Starting with the elders, up
to the least ones" hasn't been conveyed here; I'd say "mejpa' Hoch mej quppu'.
rInDI' ghu', mej je ghot ram". You've left out "[Jesus] seeing none but the
woman" (be', pagh latlh je leghDI' *yesus*) "Where are those accusers of
you? Did noone accuse you?" = "nuqDaq DuqIchbogh ghot lutu'lu''a'? DuqIchpu''a'

Without meaning to be cocky as usual, I think this does show Glen needs some
work on his grammar --- and that we'll have to exchange manuscripts soon.
Kudos on having gotten thus far, and producing a by no means disastrous
translation, of course.



Back to archive top level