tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 24 18:10:03 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Loose translation
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Loose translation
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 97 00:19:49 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Marc Paige wrote:
> ja' SuStel:
> >>>
> qoH! maHvaD qech QaQ much *charghwI'* jay': qay' targhlIj. DIvI' Hol
> mu'tlhegh mughlu'meH, jatlhlu' <qay' targhlIj>!
> <<<
> qoH jIH'a' jay'
> SuvmoH mu'meylIj jay' {{:-]
> (another "loose" translation here: them's fightin' words)
>
> I was just using the <tu'lu'> concept in a sentence for David's postal
> course! I understand that I could just say <qay' targhlIj>. I was trying,
> unsuccessfully, to be clever. Sheesh!
Hey, don't take it the wrong way! I was just trying to start up a good ol'
round of {mu'qaD veS}!
> [...] I was asking what the problem was with my sentence. I am trying to
> expand my abilities by using and translating concepts. I can certainly
> imagine that the "under foot" phrase COULD have the same connotation on
> *Qo'noS as it does here. I am probing for concept recognition here. I want
> to know if I am understood conceptually. I think that I am beyond the
> literal interpretation phase.
You're trying to see if a bunch of Terran natives can understand the concept?
Er . . . most, if not all, of the list members have some English, and none of
them are native Klingon speakers. Exactly who is supposed to tell you of the
phrase's conceptual validity? Actually, I'd be more interested in hearing
from those who have something other than English as their native language tell
us if the "under foot" phrase translates into *their* languages. If not, then
we can be sure that the phrase is not literally true, and therefore not
necessarily valid in Klingon.
Perhaps the phrase *is* valid. But then again, maybe in Klingon it must be
taken literally. You won't find that out from us. Better to use a phrase
that you *know* works. Here's an example: {qay' targhlIj}. You want clever?
For Klingons, getting directly to the point is admired, and being clever is
often looked upon as a sign of duplicity.
> toH, jItlhobqa'
> jIghitlhDI' <qam bIngDaq targhlIj tu'lu'> jIyajlu''a'
pIyaj maH, 'ach chaq Duyajbe' tlhIngan.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97314.2