tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 14 18:41:09 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: holy man
- From: "eric d. zay" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: holy man
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 21:45:55 -0500
As I am not a religious man myself, I can't say that I have been to
troubled by how to say this. However, if what is meant by "Holy man" is a
priest or cleric, the best attempt (in fact the only attempt) I have seen
to describe this was in the KSRP's translation of Hamlet, in which the
priest was referred to as *lalDan 'utlh*, meaning "religion officer". If
instead, what is meant is a religious person, then, perhaps, *lalDan
ghajbogh nuv* (Did I say this correctly SuStel?), meaning "person who has
religion" would work.
SuSvaj
----------
> From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: KLBC: holy man
> Date: Saturday, December 14, 1996 9:06 PM
>
> December 14, 1996 5:40 PM, jatlh jo'Saq:
>
> > <lalDan loD ghagwI'>
> > man who has religion
> >
> > This was the closest I could come to to saying "man of religion", as in
> > Reverend Muckandfudge, or whatever.
>
> I don't "have" a religion, I "obey" one or "believe in" one. Maybe I
even
> "follow (the rules)" one. (Well, for me this is moot; I do not practice
any
> religion.) Also, who says that only men may be the priests in the
Klingon
> Empire?
>
> lalDan ghot
> religion's person
>
> Maybe that does it, and maybe not. I say: open the doors on this one.
What
> ideas do others have?
>
> > Would a better one be:
> >
> > <lalDan lod qeqwI'>
> > man who practices religion
> >
> > That still doesn't seem right. You confuse that to mean *anyone* who
is
> > active in a religion.
>
> Worse than that: {qeq} means "practice, train, prepare," not "worship."
Do
> not use it in this sentence. How about {lalDan pabwI'}.
>
> --
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 96955.7