tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 17 21:49:04 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 333
[email protected] wrote:
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:13:27 -0400 (EDT)
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: paghmo' tIn mIS.
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> I just (tried to) read "paghmo' tIn mIS",
> the klingon version of "Much about nothing" (translated 1994 by the KLI,
> Nick Nicholas)
Incidentally, under SuStel's able (and very conservative!) editorship, this
text has been substantially revised, and will be published (with the
appropriate endnotes and introduction) by the end of the year.
With Okrand talking a mile a minute, even early 1997 grammatical norms are
already out of date. For example, all adjectival latlh are removed from the
text. Just as well, because the original text adhered to the Shoulson usage
of postposed latlh, rather than preposed, as we now know it is. On the other
hand, the use of object prefixes on jatlh is consistent with what we now know
to be canonical.
> In section 3.3. I noticed some letters capitalized that are usually not
> capitalized. What gives?
> (V: QaQMej. QaQMe'Mejchugh, NIvMa' ghotvam. ej Matschaj yaHlu'.)
Of the responses this garnered,
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:40:07 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: paghmo' tIn mIS.
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> | My guess is, it's a typo. Ignore it.
> Unlikely. Nick is too careful to make this sort of repeated error on
> something he posted for the world to see. My guess is he's dealing with a
> bit of working class Shakespearian dialect. He did the same thing in
> Hamlet V.1 (the graveyard scene). From his notes in the 1996 KLI edition:
(etc.) is correct --- although the footnote he quotes was actually written by
Guido (as prose-guy).
> QaQbej. QaQbe'bejchugh, DIvba' ghotvam. 'ej batlhchaj yaHlu'.
> which makes a lot more sense. I imagine you're reading <paghmo' tIn mIS>
> alongside the English text of "Much Ado." Out of curiosity, what's the
> corresponding line in the original?
III 3
(Dogberry: Are you good men and true?)
Verges: Yea, or else it were pity but they should suffer salvation, body and
soul.
(DIvba' is punned with nIvba'. Also, in the earlier version, the yokels use
-bej to excess; this has been pruned back somewhat in the current version.)
--
"Assuming, for whatever reasons, that neither scholar presented the evidence
properly, then there remains a body of evidence you have not yet destroyed
because it has never been presented." --- Harold Fleming
|NickNicholas|Linguistics&AppliedLinguistics|UniversityOfMelbourne|Australia|
| [email protected] http://www.lexicon.net.au/~opoudjis |