tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 07 03:07:35 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KSRP: Play within play, H...
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KSRP: Play within play, H...
- Date: Sat, 07 May 94 15:05:09 EDT
'oH'e' ghItlhta'bogh nIchyon ghaytan laDqang ghot puS
pIj laDlu' 'e' tunglaw' ghaH Qatlhbejmo' ghItlhDaj
motlhbe'mo' [Sprachegefuehl]Daj qoj [neologisms] lo'mo'
laDQo' latlh - Do'Ha'
Hamlet 'ay'vetlh vIlaD jIH'e'
vaj jIjangnIS je jIH'e':
First off, one would doubtfully understand this section without knowing the
contextual circumstances under which it occurs. Don't be discouraged if you
read this and don't make heads or tails of it. At least, unless you've read
Hamlet already.
The key is not to take anything literally. Try to absorb the jist of what's
going on. And normally what I do if I come across a part that seems
nonsensical, I just keep on reading. Further context usually sorts everything
out.
Still, I must admit that Nick's style ('ISperaHe'ghevyul) does wreak havoc on
a mind that isn't absolutely and totally focused on the text. Nicholasian
writing is not something that you can read casually. Even so, if I were Nick,
I'd play it down just a tad. I do realize that trying to get the meter and
the rhyme right might put clarity on second priority. Also, bear in mind that
this is poetry. It doesn't always have to be perfectly sensical. Usually
poetry withholds hidden meaning anyways.
>H: lIHbogh SoQ 'oH'a' QIchvam'e'?
>Degh mu'tlheghHom 'oH'a' neH?
>'o: nI'be', joH.
>H: vaj be' muSHa'ghach rur.
Hee hee. Well, you have to know the play to get this one.
>D1: wejmaHlogh bIQ'a' wIb, yuQ moQ je bavpu'
>pemHov Duj. wejvatlhjavmaHlogh DIS wavpu'
>Dotlh wov ngIpbogh maS'e', rInDI' ghu':
>muv tIqmaj, bang DIDamo'. Qap je Qu':
>matay'taH, tlhoghvaD muvmo' ghopDu'maj.
Ack!! Neologisms! Maddening!!! bIQ'a' wIb nuq jay'? yuQ moQ nuq jay'? 'ej bIH
bav pemHov Duj nuq 'e' yIQIj jay'??
The general jist I get from this piece is sort of a cosmic sense of eternity.
Eternal love between the two DawI'. Exact connotations are left vague. But oh
well.
>be' muSHa'ghach rap SaHtaHghach. rep Dach cha',
>pagh (chay' qamuSHa' 'e' Datu') reH lach cha'.
I quibble. {lach} should be {lach'egh}. {lach} just seems too darn transitive
to me. Otherwise I'd have to ask, What are they exaggerating?
But you see, that's the problem with giving feedback on this kind of text.
Nick has the meter all carefully set up, so that one syllable change can
screw it all up. Even if he were to want to add {-'egh}, he would have to
change something else.
>muSHa'chugh nuv, vaj HajnIS HonchoHDI'.
>'ach Hajbejchugh ghaH, vaj muSHa'rupchu'.
toH maj. jIQochbe'. mu'vam teHqu''e' Harlu'bej.
'a vIyajchu''a' 'e' vItul jay'!
jaS jIyajchugh vaj chaq jIQochnISchoH.
>H: wIbqu'.
I have to quibble here. Would a Klingon say this in reference to the words
that preceded it. Saying that a woman (metphorically) 'kills' her first
husband on her second marriage might prompt a Terran to call it a bitter or
sour comment. Such a metaphor exists in human literature only because bitter
or sour foods have a quality that is 'biting' or 'stinging' to the tongue.
But Klingons actually go for such foods. If I remember correctly, Warf's
favorite drink is prune juice. The first time a Terran encounters prune
juice, he's likely to shudder at one whiff of the stuff. That's my point of
view on it, anyhow. But I don't mind too much, for lack of a better word at
the moment.
>D1: DaH vuD Daja' DaQubmo'. 'e' vIHar.
>'ach nuQbogh nab DIqIlmeH pIj maghar.
>leSqawtaHghach luwuvnIS nabbogh Duj.
>vIDqang bIH boghDI', 'a DIDajDI' luj.
Another onslaught of neologisms. {leSqawtaHghach}? Something close to your
{nemSov}? Something of a synonym for {San}? What is a planning ship? And what
in the hell are the things, belligerent from birth, who fail as soon as we
test them inconclusively? jImIS neH. jImIS neHqu'.
If it wasn't already obvious, I haven't yet gone over this actual section of
the play yet, so I don't know precisely what was being said in the English.
>DaH naH Qup rur bIH. SorDaq HuStaHba',
Whoa. Talk about poetic license. One might assume this is just an error on
nIchyon's part unless they saw that it was solely for the rhyme. Still, it
almost sounds like Yoda talk to put the suffixes out of order.
>loD cha'DIch DanawQo' DaH 'e' yIQub.
That should be {nay}. There is no such word as {naw}.
>naDev Dat je multHa'jaj nI'bogh Seng ---
Is it {mul} or {mut}. Are you trying to say the trouble is selfless or
cooperative? Either way it's an odd choice of words.
>'ej not Qagh Qavmo' qabwIj Hopjaj qablIj.
qechvam QaQ'e' DaQIjmeH mu' Danabchu'ta'
vIparHa'qu'
>D3: qech qIj, ghop po', tar 'um, poH lugh je vImuv.
>boq jeS 'eb poH. ;ej DaH mulegh pagh nuv.
This use of {muv} is in direct contrast with your use of it in the lines:
>muv tIqmaj, bang DIDamo'. Qap je Qu':
>matay'taH, tlhoghvaD muvmo' ghopDu'maj.
in which it is intransitive. But in D3's line, it is definitely transitive.
I offer several alternatives:
Make it {...muvchuq tIqmaj...}, and leave it transitive. Or else you could
use {rar}, which seems imesho more likely transitive than {muv} would be. I
am extremely reluctant to accept the argument that says it could be both
transitive *and* in-. Mainly this is because of the transitizer {-moH}.
What's the point of it if words end up making themselves alternately
transitive without any suffix at all. English can get away with that because
it has no real, solid equivalent to {-moH}.
{molDargh} is a good name for the poison, btw.
One last point I'd like to make.
In the translation of the entire works of Shakespeare and the Bible, our lack
of any native standard results in numerous idiosyncratic styles. Every scene
of every act of every play will be in a different style. Reading thru one
full play will be accompanied by the annoying necessity of having to
constantly re-adjust between scenes.
Even the styles between the most frequent mailing list posters are so
radically different. And to think of how wildly distant the styles of the
non-InterNet Klingonists all doing their own piece of Shakespeare will seem.
Ridiculous.
I gather that over time, (say, a decade or two) the styles of the most
competent Klingonists will converge. One day, we may have a native standard.
Until then, I think a decadely revision of the KSRP would be in order. And
very possible one for the KBTP, but probably at longer intervals.
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos