tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 06 14:52:03 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIchuSchoHqu''a'
- From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: bIchuSchoHqu''a'
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:49:49 -0500
ghItlh qeylan
>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.
But, unfortunately, in keeping with the illustrious cheng Sa', it has to be
written as a bumbling Terran propagandaist might translate it. That means
that you shouldn't go with something that captures the meaning if it
changes around the words too much. This is just hypothesis, but it seems
logical, and also there are many parts in Hamlet that could have been done
closer, but are closer to the English in phrasing (no offense).
By the way, the explanation that the going on too long to make the audience
uneasy in the introduction was rather ingenious, but does this mean that
the same excuse must be done for the other plays, which undoubtedly go on
for just as long? Is there a solution?
Qapla'
qoror