tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 20 17:50:44 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC moHaq Dup
> What you see as "an interesting twist", I, as a non-native speaker of
> English, see as a disappointing copy of English grammar, which most
> likely came about through careless translation of what rightfully are
> IOs in English into Objects in Klingon, leaving the rightful DO of the
> English sentence tacked on at the front of the Klingon sentence. Very
> disappointing, especially from a person (Marc Okrand) with a degree in
> linguistics.
I don't find one form in any language necessarily better than any
other form in any other language: they are, to me, merely different,
though some may lend themselves to finer, or grosser, translations
and meanings. While it is true that I'd not have chosen to use this
form for IO in Klingon, it is also true that I didn't create Klingon. My
only disappointments so far are because of the lack of clarifications
by Okrand about grammar & usage.
BTW, English is not the sole natural language which has this form
for IO; nor is Klingon the only constructed language which uses
anglicisms (e.g. Láadan has a word "ib", which translates as
"against", but which can either "lying surface to surface" and "in
opposition to", the deference being determined by context).