tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 29 19:33:43 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 177
- From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 177
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 03:03:26 +1000
- Organization: Ling & App Ling, Uni of Melbourne
- References: <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 00:55:53 UT
> From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Dax & nuq Hech jIH
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> jatlh mIqIraH:
> > jatlh SuStel:
> > > Remember, Hamlet and the rest of the KSRP are NOT canon. Hamlet, for
> > > example,
> > > has {Hoch} always follow the noun it's modifying, not precede it.
And let me remind newer subscribers, who might not know the history involved,
that at the time Hamlet was translated, our best guess (faintly backed by
canon) was indeed that Hoch followed the noun it modified; this was also the
standard used on the list. It was only after Hamlet appeared that we got
canon turning that around.
This is the necessary risk of anyone using Klingon --- that Okrand will
rescind you tomorrow. It has generated no little resentment over the years,
but that's the situation, and we're stuck with it; we certainly can't depose
Okrand in a Glorious Revolution or anything like that, and still lay a claim
to canonical tlhIngan Hol.
> The reason the KSRP uses {nuqneH} this way? Because when translating
> Shakespeare, who has most of his entering characters say something of an
> introductory nature, you've got to put *something* there!
In retrospect, everything looks clearer, and at least some of the nuqneH
should have been replaced by qavan or (ingeniously coined by Guido#1) qaghov.
> Actually, Nick, if you're paying attention, I think this would be a viable
> idea: leaving these lines blank where they don't make sense to Klingons.
> Since the idea is that Shakespeare was a Klingon whose works were stolen by
> the Federation, one might show that all of the useless "hello"-style lines
> were just added on by Terran forgers, because they thought these were
> needed.
> Of course, it's far too late to think about this for Much Ado . . .
I'm rather disinclined to do it, anyway; it makes my job much too easy for my
liking. As you know, my preferred strategy for such instances is to translate
them with a completely different meaning, and note the divergence in my
annotation.
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 04:37:04 UT
> From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: RE: KLBC&KBTP, Biblical translation
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> On Tuesday, March 25, 1997 4:17 PM, [email protected] on behalf of
> [email protected] wrote:
> > >If you mean are these the correct terms to use? They never were THE
> > >words.
> > >They are words Nick may choose to use, but that does not make them
> > >official, or even right.
I'm surprised noone has pointed out that one of them, QumyaS, is in fact
incorrect (the analogy with QumpIn is not one anyone but Okrand is allowed to
make); if and when I revise the text, it'll be changed to QumpIn.
> > Nick's translation of Mark is on the KLI web site and is in fact copy
> > written
> > to them. This would imply that the KLI at least accepts Nick's work and
> > that
> > it is in some sense official. Do I have that wrong? Will the KLI
> > publish
> > anything. Aren't they responsible for the form, if not the content, of
> > the things they publish?
I'll say what my understanding of this is, because it is slightly at variance
with David's. The way I see it is more an "all care but no responsibility"
attitude. Work done under the official auspices of KLI is done with a view to
following Klingon canon as best as current knowledge at the time of
translation allows. That is why anything the KLI prints *should* be vetted by
another Klingonist, recognised for his/her grammatical expertise. I'm not up
to date on policy for jatmey; things were checked, but things have slipped
through in the past. Then again, things slipped through in Hamlet, too. For
the KSRP, at least, my understanding is that everything gets vetted; Andrew
Strader's and my work on Hamlet by Mark Shoulson, mine on Much Ado by David
Trimboli. A big reason why the language in Hamlet and Much Ado are rather
different is the difference in grammatical judgement between Mark and David;
David is much more conservative on such matters as prefix indirect objects
(although he's starting to soften on that point).
If a text hasn't been vetted yet, then less care has been taken over it than
over the paper-published material, and less confidence should be placed in it
--- not that the KSRP material can represent anything more than certain
Klingonists' current understanding of the grammar. Thus, both the sonnets and
Mark are due for an overhaul, and have not yet been vetted by anyone.
> If you volunteered for the KSRP, and have some skill in Klingon, I'm sure
> the KLI would be greatful for your help, even if your opinions are very
> different from others'. (This I know from experience. I've been working
> with Nick on Much Ado, and we have *very* different viewpoints on the
> language. But, we compromise, because neither of us is "official." And
> Nick is very willing to
> listen to and possibly accept another's interpretation. Me, I listen too,
> though I'm too stubborn to admit it!)
As I've said on other occasions: I feel it is my duty to yield where I don't
have a strong case (which, in the occasional arguments I've had with David
--- on at least one of which I had to invoke Mark as an arbitrator --- I've
been surprised to find was even less often than I'd thought.) I'm in the
business of producing tlhIngan Hol, not Nicholaic. The language vetting
policy is an established institution in Esperanto publishing, and should be
so in Klingon publishing as well.
And I feel obligated to say this now, in case it doesn't get clearly enough
expressed in the frontespiece of Much Ado: just as Hamlet bore the
unmistakable imprint of Mark's linguistic intuition, so too Much Ado bears
the unmistakable imprint of David's. Both endeavours have been true
collaborations, and I am honoured to have worked together with Andrew, Mark
and David.
> Let me put it to you this way: if another organization published something
> in
> Klingon, say the ILS, would I consider that "less official"? Not at all!
> I may disagree with their interpretations, but I cannot say "I'm right and
> you're wrong."
Weeell, I have my own views on the relative *care* taken by the respective
organisations, and the fact that the mailing list makes for a deeper
understanding of the grammar than any one individual can attain on their own;
of course, last time I expressed those views, I ended up causing a schism...
It is true, nonetheless, that the KLI is no more official than the ILS ---
although it is a privileged channel for *reporting* what is currently
official.
--
yISotQo', jupwI'. yIQuch... Nick Nicholas, Linguistics,
chaq DuQuchmoHlaHbej yuch. University of Melbourne,
Don't be distressed, my friend. Be happy... Australia.
Perhaps chocolate can cheer you up. [email protected]
-- David Barron, Klingon Opera _Kang_. http://daemon.apana.org.au/~opoudjis