tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 02 14:17:57 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: RE: KLBC on naming convention

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:25:29 -0800 David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> December 01, 1996 7:14 PM, jatlh qayrIS:
...
> >         So I'm translating {vIponglu'} as "I am called," choosing the
> > passive voice intentionally..
> 
> What you're doing is fiddling with the English translation, hoping it changes 
> the meaning.  Remember that however you translate it, it still says the same 
> thing in Klingon.  In this case, {-lu'} may often be *translated* into 
> English's passive voice, but that's not its definition.  {-lu'} always refers 
> to an action with an indefinite subject.

I think this is a point a lot of people like to make a big stink 
over which does not deserve this much significance. The passive 
voice works just fine for most sentences using {-lu'}. In fact, 
for most of them I think it works BETTER than the awkward 
"One/someone calls me." That's why Okrand himself usually uses 
the passive voice to translate his sentences using {-lu'}.

The main reason I believe that he makes a point of saying that 
{-lu'} is not exactly and exclusively the same thing as passive 
voice is because {-lu'} can also be used with intransitive 
verbs. There's no way that the TKD example {quSDaq ba'lu''a'?} 
can be translated into the passive voice.

So, you can rightfully avoid straining yourself trying to force 
an intransitive verb with {-lu'} into an impossible passive 
voice and then carry that small lesson to the extreme of NEVER 
using the passive voice EVEN THOUGH IT WORKS BETTER IN OTHER 
CASES, if you choose, but I, for one, will ALWAYS encourage 
people to use the passive voice when translating transitive 
verbs with {-lu'} because it properly conveys the meaning and 
does so with a very natural English translation.

> Many people go through this problem.  I found a long time ago that if I always 
> translate {-lu'} verbs as "one does blah blah," I never run into the problem 
> of trying to emulate English passive voice.  

And I can swim faster with flippers on, but that doesn't mean 
they work really well when playing basketball. Sometimes the 
passive voice is inappropriate, but most of the time it is the 
best choice when translating verbs with {-lu'}. Just learn when 
it works and when it doesn't instead of trying to preach an 
extremely safe and very awkward technique.

> For example, Okrand translates 
> {batlh Daqawlu'taH} as "You will be remembered with honor," but when *I* 
> translate it, I don't use the passive voice: "Someone will remember you with 
> honor."  It may sound funny in English, but you won't go wrong with that.

So, why sound funny in English? Okrand doesn't sound funny in 
English. And the whole point of Krankor's story translation 
project was how to apply the most natural English translation to 
Klingon passages while maintaining both the meaning and flavor 
wherever possible.

It is a good exercise to deal with the literal translations of 
things, but that should only be a tool for tuning the accuracy 
of more natural sounding translations. Literal translations are 
interesting, but incomplete. To finish them, you need 
techniques, like using the passive voice.
 
> > The {vI-} prefix points the name (used as an
> > object, since I'm winging it here) at "me". {pong}, as has been pointed out
> > in the FAQ, is a two-object verb.  The name is one object, and the thing
> > named is the other.
> 
> The FAQ is not canon, and it doesn't give an exact answer.  We do have the 
> canon SkyBox card which shows how this is done.  Given the choice between 
> canon and non-canon, guess which one I'd choose?

While I tend to favor canon, in that particular example, the 
option of expressing the indirect object implicitly through the 
prefix is not available because there is no visible difference 
between the singular third person of the direct object (the 
name of the planet) or the indirect object (the planet being 
named). So, if I were to say, "He is called SuStel," I would 
have to say, {ghaHvaD SuStel ponglu'.} There is no way to 
construct that in the same way I can say, {charghwI' vIponglu'.} 

You are suggesting that I should stick to {jIHvaD charghwI' 
ponglu'.} We have canon for expressing the indirect object through 
the prefix and now we have canon which explains that with the 
verb {pong}, the person named is the indirect object. So what is 
your problem combining these two observations? I feel fine about 
{charghwI' vIponglu'.}

> >         I'd translate {jIHvaD *qayrIS* ponglu'} as something much like "The
> > name 'Kyris' is given to me', which basically conveys the meaning I was
> > looking for.  I arrived at that construction, too, after reading the FAQ's
> > discussion on names.  When I saw {-lu'} given to express passive voice, I
> > came up with my other idea.
> 
> Again, {-lu'} may be used to express English's passive voice, but that's NOT 
> what it is.

That is not what it ALWAYS is, but in many examples (in MOST 
examples) the two are totally indistinguishable. There is no 
sense trying to blow up the exceptional cases as evidence that 
the passive voice can never be accurately applied to {-lu'} as a 
valid translation. This perspective is more wrong than that 
which you are trying to correct.
 
> {jIHvaD *qayrIS* ponglu'} would most accurately be translated as "One names 
> 'Kyris'; this naming applies to me."

No. It means, "One calls me Kyris." Or better yet, "I am called 
Kyris."
 
> -- 
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 96920.1

charghwI'

Back to archive top level