tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 05 13:56:43 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: bIchuSchoHqu''a'
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: bIchuSchoHqu''a'
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:05:14 -0700
Joel Peter Anderson wrote:
...
> That is the problem I have with your version. I don't think you
> have got to the thought by veering off into lalDan. The text,
> while in a religious context, is not about "lalDan" (religion) - it is
> about LOVE. The full chapter uses some religious terms/language
> (angels, prophecy) but never mentions any deity. It is an exposition
> of a deep sacrificial love
> "Love is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag,
> is not proud, doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek
its
> own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; doesn't rejoice
in
> unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things,
> believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things..."
> - which I'd guess at some *level* is included in parmaq.
jabbI'IDghomvamvaD, ramba' QInvam, 'ach jISaHbe'. muDuQ ghItlh 'ay'vam,
'ej vIHub vIneH.
I do agree that charghwI''s choice of <lalDan qech> is imperfect, but he
is certainly heading in the right direction. The text is NOT about LOVE,
and it is certainly not about <parmaq>. It is about something very
specific, which in English gets thrown in the catch-all bin of the word
"love". Don't get hung up on the word; worry about the idea behind it.
This work was translated from the original, and not all the translations
even agree on this particular word. An older translation (King James, I
believe) does not use the word "love" at all in this chapter; it instead
uses "charity". In today's usage, "charity" is not very good here
either: it brings to the mind images of rich old ladies spending one
afternoon a week raising money for the children's hospital in a bake
sale. In the original Latin, however, St. Paul used the word "caritas",
from which "charity" is derived, and THIS word describes the original
intent. (BTW, If I am wrong, and Paul wrote this letter in Greek, the
Greek "agape" is nearly identical in meaning, so thppptttt). If you want
more on the original intent, I'll be happy to make up a bibliorgaphy and
send you to the library. You'll get way better explanations that way
than you will from me.
Because most English translations use the word "love", you assume the
all-inclusive meaning rather than the original, specific intent, and
since the only Klingon noun within easy reach for any kind of love is
<parmaq>, you choose it. As an analogy, imagine an original text
discussing sandstone, which is then translated into a language which has
only one word for all types of rock. When translating into yet another
language, where the only type of rock we have a name for is granite,
that's what we use. Thus through 2 translations, we have managed to
transform sandstone into granite. Quite a feat.
So charghwI' is right: when translating anything, especially poetry, and
most especially poetry which has already been translated once, the
intent is far more important than the words. Depending on your goal,
even specific images in the poetry may not fit. Preaching about fire and
brimstone to 7th century Vikings, for example, is NOT the way to get
them to fear Hell. So think about the intent of the author; about your
audience; about your purpose in translating it; and about what it really
means to you, and then worry about how you can communicate this thought
to other people through language.
And since I'm on a rant, religion does NOT require a deity. It's true
the Big Three Western religions all have essentially the same all
powerful God at the center of their belief systems, but other religions
can believe in a single God, many gods, or no gods at all. What little
we know of the Klingon religion indicates that it was once polytheistic,
but that Klingon warriors slew their gods ages ago. <qeylIS> is
certainly a mythical figure, but he is not a God, or even a god. Many
forms of Buddhism are similar in this way: the original Buddah found the
way to enlightenment, but was not inherently divine.
I don't know how I would translate this particular chapter. I know it
(or one translation of it) by heart in English, and I have read
(somewhat successfully) the Latin. Capturing its meaning and beauty in
Klingon will require significant thought and effort - there is no easy
way. It's a hard piece to translate into Klingon, and any simple
attempts will either be awkward, inaccurate, or both.
pagh