tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 21:23:08 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: bIchuSchoHqu''a'

don't send this to ducks @globec.com.au

----------
> From: m109 <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: bIchuSchoHqu''a'
> Date: Thursday, 6 November 1997 20:20
> 
> 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

Back to archive top level