tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 21 10:39:14 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon Poetry for College (2nd attempt)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon Poetry for College (2nd attempt)
- Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:40:49 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 03:00:20 -0500 Mo Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:
> qen "Illiteracy" yejHaDghomwIj QonoS vIqonnIS, 'ej
> tlhIngan Hol vIlo'ta' 'e' vIwuq. vuDraj HIja'.
> boparHa''a'?
batlh bIvangqang. batlh bIvanglaH'a'? bInIDtaHchugh Data'.
> T'Lod
>
> In Klingon:
>
> ghojwI'pu'lI' tISaH
>
> qonta' *tu'loD *roy' puqloD
>
> ghojwI'pu'lI' tISaH
> yIghojmoHchu' tIghmeychaj mojnISmo' tIghmaj
choHbe'nIS tIghmaj. choHnIS tIghchaj. vaj tIghmaj mojnIS
tIghchaj. vaj:
tIghmaj lumojmeH tIghmeychaj tIghojmoHchu'
> tugh qa'meHpu'ma' moj chaH
>
> ghojwI'pu'lI' tISaH
> chaH poQ pIq law''e'
nuqjatlh? I honestly don't know how to say, "The future
depends on them" in Klingon. I think it is an odd abstract
concept that would require a more specific statement to be
meaningful. What do you mean by "the future"? That is at
least as vague as the English noun "love".
> taHmeH quv'e' tIghmaj SovnIS
Assuming that {tIghmaj} is plural, right? Otherwise
{luSovnIS}.
> batlh yInmeH mIw DI'aghnIS
Assuming {mIw} is plural, right?
> mataHmeH maH'e' tIghmaj SovnIS chaH'e'
Assuming that tIghmaj is plural, or {luSovnIS}.
> ghojwI'pu'lI' tISaH
> laDmeH 'ej qonmeH mIw yI'agh
> ghojwI' nIvqu' qonwI' nIvqu' joq moj chaH'e'
> batlh yInmeH mIw yI'agh
> DevwI' nIvqu' moj chaH'e'
> QubmeH 'ej ghojmeH mIw yI'agh
> puqpu'chaj ghojmoHmeH mIw yI'agh je
maj. yap.
> ghojwI'pu'lI' tISaH
> wIchenmoHbogh qo'Daq QapnISchu'
tlha'chuqHa' mu'meylIj. nuq wIchenmoH?
> mataHmeH maSachnIS
net Sov.
> tIghmaj puqpu' DIghojnISmoH
puqpu'vaD tIghmaj DIghojnISmoH. A lot of people don't like
this construction, but the simple truth is, this is the
only way Okrand has ever shown us to handle putting {-moH}
on a verb that already has a direct object. Your method
throws two nouns in the direct object position with no
explanation as to which one is the direct object and what
is the other one doing in the sentence?
You do use the {XvaD Y ZmoH} construction later in your
poem.
> mataHmeH no'chaj tIghmey lughojnISmoH puqpu'ma'
ghojnISmoH. <<lu->> yInop.
> tIghpu'maj ghojmoHbe'chugh maHeghbej
ghojbe'chugh. <<-moH>> yInop.
> mavon'eghlu'pu'be' neH, 'ach Hoch qorDu'ma' je DIlon
luj <<mavon'eghlu'pu'be'>>. <<maX'eghlu'>> is gibberish.
{-'egh} and {-lu'} do mutually exclusive, perverse things
to the verb's prefix and they do not combine well at all.
You are working too hard to overstretch the usefulness of
{vonlu'} to adapt to the somewhat idiomatic English term
"We fail ourselves". Then you say that we capture our
families. Just use {lujchu'} or even just {luj}, or forget
about {'egh} and say {wIvonlu'pu'be'} and then {qorDu'ma'
je DIvonmoHlu'}. I'm not wild about this latter option, but
it works better than what you now have. In fact, after
thinking more, I think my suggestion here is probably
highly controversial. Stick with {luj}.
Realize that {neH} after a verb means "merely". Only when
it follows a noun does it mean "only" as in "exclusively".
> puqpu'lI'vaD nugh tIghmey DaghojmoHbe'chugh, bIvonlu'pu'
maj.
> ghojwI'pu'lI' tISaH
>
> In DIvI' Hol:
> Care about your students
> by James Johnson
>
> Care about your students
> Teach them well because our ways must become theirs.
> They will replace us soon.
>
> Care about your students
> The future depends on them
> If honor is to survive, they must know our ways
> We must show them how to live
> If we are to survive, they must know our ways
>
> Care about your students
> Show them how to read and write
> That they might be great scholars or poets
> Show them how to be honorable
> That they might be great leaders
> Show them how to think and learn
> That they might also show their children as well
>
> Care about your students
> They must be able to function in the world we created
> In order to survive we must expand
> Our ways must be passed on to our children
> In order to continue, our children must learn the ways of their ancestors
>
> If they fail to learn our ways, we will die
> We will have failed not only ourselves, but all our families.
> Those who do not teach their children the ways of our society have already failed.
>
> Care about your students.
>
> I tried to get as close as I could when translating from
> the Klingon.
You have pointed exactly to what I think is the core
problem most people have in translation. When you say "I
have tried to get as close as I could..." what you are
really referring to is that you have tried to stick to the
same grammar and vocabulary, rather than trying to stick to
the same meaning. If you could say things that better
reflected the meaning of a sentence, you chose not to do
that, but instead tried to use the same kind of clauses and
grammar and you tried to keep the same vocabulary.
I think it is much more important to make the wording of
both languages flow better, so long as the statements in
both languages point to a common meaning. This is more
useful for those trying to help you know if you have
expressed yourself clearly.
> I took a few liberties only to make the
> English flow more smoothly. If these weren't correct,
> please tell me so I don't repeat myself.
I LIKED when you did this. I think this is a GOOD thing. If
the English states what you MEANT, then we can read the
Klingon and tell you if it says that same thing.
> Qapla'
>
> T'Lod
charghwI'