tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 02 20:20:37 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC on naming convention

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:40:42 -0800 Marc Ruehlaender 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [SuStel gives advice to translate {-lu'} using the construction
> "one does", which charghwI' dislikes, prompting him to say:]
> > 
> > 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 point is, you should only think about "finishing up" your
> English translation _after_ making sure it makes sense by
> employing the literal translation.
> 
> "One names me HomDoq" is certainly equivalent to "I am called
> HomDoq" and the latter is better English, no doubt. But "One
> wrecks the shuttle" is NOT equivalent to "The shuttle is wrecked"
> (the latter describing a state of the shuttle, while the former
> refers to the process of bringing the shuttle to that state).

It sounds different because you are perhaps unwittingly playing 
with the tense, which is slippery in Klingon. "One wrecks the 
shuttle," equals "The shuttle is being wrecked." "The shuttle is 
wrecked," equals "One wrecked the shuttle." The latter two 
examples are very near the perfective, since "One has wrecked 
the shuttle," equals "The shuttle has been wrecked," which 
sounds a lot like, "The shuttle is wrecked."

English gets pretty slippery here, too, since "The shuttle is 
wrecked," sounds very different when you make it, "The shuttle 
is wrecked by meteorites as they pass." Suddenly, it goes back 
to an ongoing present action rather than a perfective. 

> All in all I think you agree with what SuStel was _trying_ to say
> don't you.

I agree that non-passive voice interpretations are valid. I do 
not agree that passive voice interpretations are invalid. That 
is the reason I felt compelled to respond. It is one thing to 
say, "Another way to say this is..." and altogether something 
else to say, "The way you said it is wrong..." I was objecting 
to the rejection of passive voice as a valid translation. If he 
had merely pointed out an equivalent (if somewhat awkward 
sounding) alternative translation, that would be different. But 
he specifically objected to the use of the passive voice, and I 
reject that objection.

Besides, I just listened to my housemate brood for a couple 
hours because his wife just left him for another guy in Ireland, 
and I'm in a really bad mood. It is unfortunate that innocent 
SuStel just happened to offer an opinion I found so incredibly 
easy with which to disagree.

[Cut to old Anacin commercial: "Sure, your stressed, irritable 
and you've got a headache, but DON'T take it out on HIM." The 
camera backs out and you see the television on which the 
commercial plays. Suddenly, it explodes in a bright flash. The 
camera backs out further and you see a smiling Klingon blowing 
smoke from the glowing tip of his disruptor.]
 
> HomDoq

charghwI'

Back to archive top level