tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 23 08:33:43 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: lut tlhaQ 'e' vItul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
>
>lab SuStel:
>& jatlh jey'el:
>
>& > veng tInDaq, qach jen HurDaq,
>&
>& An Ewok village? In Lothlorien? The Jetsons? We don't have a word
>& for "tall." When you say {jen}, I imagine one of these places, not a
>& tall building.
>
>I don't have this problem. I just see the part of the buiding which
>*is* high and ignore the part underneath it.
I don't have this problem either. To be sure, there's no certain way of
knowing if Klingon has a separate word for "tall" as distinct from "high,"
but it would be quite reasonable if it didn't. In Hebrew you say "'ish
gavoahh" for "a tall man," literally "a high man" (no cracks about drugs,
OK?) Considering how uncommon it is to talk about someone or some building
as being "high" as opposed to "tall", {jen} could be a very reasonable
translation.
And of course, just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's right,
either. :)
>top of a table, could be a chair with especially long legs. nuv jen
>doesn't work for me, though, unless the person is on stilts.
But even that works in Hebrew. Go fig.
>However, when I see "qach jen HurDaq" I think of someone outside a
>high building on a window washing platform. I'd say "qach jen
>bIngDaq" -- and wait for SuStel to get pedantic: wulthDaq qar'a' SoH?
>Qom qar'a' qach?
Does {bIng} have to be directly vertically underneath? I think your use
could be reasonable.
>& > pujwI' jIvvaD qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'.
>& > To the ignorant weakling they seem mean and vicious.
>&
>& {qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'}. {-law'} doesn't mean that the *subject* of
>& the sentence isn't sure of the validity of the statement, it means
>& that the *speaker* isn't sure of it. Therefore, {qejlaw' 'ej
>& naSlaw'} means "they were probably mean and vicious."
>
>I hate this one. SuStel's argument *does* follow the literal word of
>TKD, but the examples in TKD are all cases where the speaker and the
>point of view of the sentence are the same. A story in the third
>person isn't necessarily expressing the point of view of the author.
>"The child didn't want to speak to the terrifying policeman so he
>hid in the safety of the park." I don't think the policeman is
>terifying and I know the park isn't safe. I'm writing from the point
>of view of the child. So:
>
>SuvwI'pu' legh pujwI' jIv. qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'
>
>*could* well mean that I the writer of the sentence believe the
>warriors to be mean and vicious, but I argue that it could be
>translated "They seemed mean and vicious," with the time at and
>person to whom they seemed that way being determined by the context.
I'm inclined to go with you, Qov.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM66XUcppGeTJXWZ9AQE/TwL+Ka3oKqUNxcu51+zSXYiGa9h7NfnMTpbg
ndR7dWAsJ8c8CwvwD7qrb1eWXzPyF2OS2lqqbBx/uFJ5O64Frjd7nCAxaibs5f5l
udd5eXVZfyCH1JA6vNFxMY8RJTm/T+eJ
=hZxp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----