tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 05 03:43:43 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Feynman quote


> De'vID wrote:
> : vay' lInglaHmo' QeD, lI' QeD.
> : (Science is of value because it can produce something.)
> :                       -- Richard Feynman

Voragh:
> I see that you do the same thing I do: translate quotations into Klingon
> whenever I notice that we have the necessary vocabulary.  But why do
> you prefer {lI'} "be useful" over {lo'laH} "be valuable", which is
> virtually synonymous with "be of value"?

{lI'} was just the first word that came into my mind for this meaning.
But I have a tendency to avoid {lo'laH} because I don't really like
the word.  It looks too much like it's {lo'} + {-laH}, which is a
different word and has a different meaning.

> Although Okrand has never used {lo'laH} in a sentence, he has used its antonym
> {lo'laHbe'} "be worthless":
>
>   vIlo'laHbe'
>   They are useless to me.
>   I cannot use them. TKD

I don't think that this is an instance of {lo'laH} "be valuable".
It actually is {lo'} with {-laH}.
{vI-} + {lo'} + {-laH} + {-be'} "I cannot use them" as opposed to
{vI-} + {lo'laH} + {-be'} "I not valuable them", "I worthless them",
which doesn't make sense.

>   leghlaHchu'be'chugh mIn lo'laHbe' taj jej
>   A sharp knife is nothing without a sharp eye. TKW

This is a case of {lo'laH}, but here's why I don't like the word: One
can also read the sentence as "if the eye cannot see perfectly, the
sharp knife cannot use it."  Use what?  The eye?  Hmmm... Actually,
come to think of it, that makes a lot of sense.  If Klingons see
weapons as extensions of their body, then perhaps the sharp knife is
using one's eyes in some way.  I didn't see this meaning before.

But this sentence aside, the ambiguity of {lo'laH} is something
that I tend to avoid, especially since {lI'} is available.

>   lo'laHbe'; chetvI' chIm rur
>   worthless as an empty torpedo tube KGT

This almost makes me think that at a previous stage of the Klingon
language, {lo'} had meant "be used" rather than "use".

> The difference in meaning is slight.  Perhaps {lo'laH} is stronger
> than {lI'}?
> If so, then I would suggest:
>
>   vay' lInglaHmo' lo'laH QeD.
>   Because it can produce something, science is valuable.

The problem with this is that it can also mean:
Because science can produce someone, science can use him/her.

(It sounds like the experiment of Dr. Frankenstein or something.)

> Since this is a relatively short sentence, I think we don't need to
> repeat {QeD} in both clauses.

I did that intentionally for effect.  The purpose of Feynman's essay
was to highlight the importance of science.  In the context in which
the quote appears, I thought that it "feels" more in tune with his
message to repeat the word {QeD} "science", as that was what he was
trying to emphasize.

--
De'vID

--
tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]

Back to archive top level