tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 06 07:32:35 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
_Mark_ translation
- From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
- Subject: _Mark_ translation
- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 23:19:42 +1000
- Organization: University of Melbourne,Dept. of Linguistics & Applied Linguistics
In Digest 647, macheq made the following comments about the proper names in my
rendering of the Gospel according to Mark:
>Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:03:40 EDT
>From: "Dr. Maciej St. Zieba" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: "grape" in the Gospel of Mark was: Word borrowing in Klingon
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>'grape' (for *'grape' HIq*, 'wine'), and so on.
>Despite the translator's opinion the last information isn't true enough.
>In fact I have checked the whole online KLI version of the Gospel according to
>Mark in Nick's translation and I find no loanword for "grape".
>(Maybe Nick has it still in his papers for the promised corrected
>translation? :-) ).
No, Nick simply misremembered :-)
>Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:05:09 EDT
>From: "Dr. Maciej St. Zieba" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Names in the Gospel of Mark and other word-borrowings there
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>$ *yeSuS* *'IHrIStoS* - Jesus Christ (Mk. 1,1) (why not: *'IHrIStoS* *yeSuS* ?)
The other 'surnames' in the text are analogous to genitive constructions: the
specific is a patronymic or place of origin. In this case, 'Christ' is a title,
and the two nouns are in apposition. I didn't feel like pressing the analysis
too far, since 'J.C.' is commonly taken to be a name anyway, so I left the order
as is. (In fact, canon like Day joH actually justifies the ordering used here.)
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:47:05 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Names in the Gospel of Mark and other word-borrowings there
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>I wonder why there's such a love for "tlh" for sounds that are even
>slightly non-Klingon. If I were transliterating a "z" sound (as in
>Beelzebub), I'd use "S", not "tlh". At least it's a sibilant, and a
>fricative! "z" differs from "s" (which becomes "S") only in voicing, and
>"tlh" isn't voiced either, so what do you gain? You have an affricate
>instead! True, some English words with z (like "Zion") are based on Hebrew
>words with a tzadi, which is (in Modern pronunciation) a voiceless
>affricate (and even in ancient pronunciation was never voiced), but for
>true "z" sounds, I'd stick with "S."
In really Ancient Greek, 'z' was an affricate --- and I suspected as much for
the Hebrew being transliterated as well. So I wouldn't mind keeping 'tlh'
here...
>Same with "th". Especially considering that many of them are from Hebrew,
>which lost its "th" sound (if it ever had one) quite a long time ago in
>most dialects. "tlh" is no better for "th" than "t" is, and "t" is how it
>would be pronounced by most Hebrew-speakers today. Hmm... And you know,
>I'm nearly positive that even in ancient pronunciation "sabachtani" would
>have to have had a hard t and not a th. I think it follows a quiescent
>shwa, and that makes the t hard. Some of the words are from Greek, which
>did and does have a true "th" sound; maybe "tlh" is good for that... but
>maybe "t" is still better, or maybe even "S" (listen to how Japanese
>transliterates some English words with "th").
Actually, Ancient Greek th was an aspirated t (hence the spelling); I forget
when the change-over to the fricative took place (sometime between 100 BC and
300 AD, at a guess), but given in addition that I've rendered 'ph' as 'p'
(though it was definitely being pronounced as f by the 1st century AD), I'll
make the th's t's. When I rejig the translation, I'll also pay less attention to
stress: for instance, there is no need for *pe'tlhoS* as opposed to *petroS* for
'Peter'. On the other hand, I could readily use *QIStoS* rather than *'IHrIStoS*
for 'Christ'; anyone have any preference on the matter?
--
NON ME TENENT VINCVLA NON ME TENET CLAVIS STETIT PVELLA RVFA TVNICA SIQVIS
Nick Nicholas http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~nsn Linguistics
QVAERO MEI SIMILES ET ADIVNGOR PRAVIS EAM TETIGIT TVNICA CREPVIT EIA
[email protected] University of Melbourne
ARCHIPOETAE CONFESSIO E CARMINIBVS BVRANIS