tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 06 02:08:00 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIchuSchoHqu''a'
In message <7107ECAEC9ECD0119BBC00805F684B9C3980@VIPER>, "Andeen, Eric"
<[email protected]> writes
>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
Not only poetry but also plays, I'm thinking of Shakespeare as I write
this. You couldn't possibly get the correct moods across when
translating Shakespeare if you did it word for word. It just isn't
written like that, he use strange words who's meanings have changed over
time. To translate it properly you must UNDERSTAND the play you are
translating not just write parrot-fashion.
qelayn
--
m109