tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 19 10:37:42 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [KLBC] RHOTS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
>From: [email protected]
>
>ghItlh Duncan:
>>'anSisHo (how do I get a "Fr") pItlha'ro!
>>Fransisco Pizarro!
>
>jang Qov:
>>I'd use {vIr} if I had to transliterate. But *Fransisco* is
>>preferable.
>
>What about Hamlet's {veranchISqo} ?
The Hamlet translation has a very particular purpose. Look at the FAQ on
transliteration.
Essentially, the point is that in most texts, especially casual speech and
even certain types of translation, transliteration is decidedly more
trouble than it's worth. In some cases, you have a particular desire for a
"purely" Klingon approach, and in such exceptional situations it may be
desirable to go with transliterations. In Hamlet, the conceit was that
Hamlet was "originally" written in Klingon, so it would not be appropriate
to have English names pasted into it. The KBTP is not taking that same
perspective, but for the purposes of formality of the text we're
transliterating names as well (besides, it's a longstanding tradition in
Bible translation, which is why you say "Joshua" instead of "y'hoshua`" and
"Isaac" instead of "yitzchak").
If you mean why is it "ver" and not "vIr"... well, who said transliterating
clusters had to be the same at all times for all clusters and by all
transliterators? "Yochanan" came into English as "John" but into Greek as
"Ioannes" and into German as "Johann". Different people heard it
differently and transliterated according to what they heard. Why is it
"Yitchak Rabin" but "Itzhak Perlman"? Different hearings of the same word.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBNCK4W8ppGeTJXWZ9AQE8cgMAksQVoPjbjHI2fuw4QyUrwwscldJnSB/l
PPMMSZXB2n/OhrFUofy95V70YqKVlgwz0SQRRhJhFGpMackhetlZRt5rIaXgjk+l
LhnFiL6z2xYPZvTJMIqB5kMme3Y/xzL4
=vTzl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----