tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 30 21:36:15 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: " tIqyoH " pongpu'bogh ghe'naQvo' jImugh
- From: "Will Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: " tIqyoH " pongpu'bogh ghe'naQvo' jImugh
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 00:35:58 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:33 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: " tIqyoH " pongpu'bogh ghe'naQvo' jImugh
>
>
> In a message dated 01-04-27 12:32:42 EDT, you write:
>
> << Indeed.
>
> : Hegh Hoch loD 'ach yInchu'be' Hoch loD.
> : (Every man dies...but not all men truly live.)
> : <Every man dies, but every man does not perfectly live.>
>
> There's no need to edit this; we can translate it exactly:
>
> Hegh Hoch loD 'ach yInchu'be' Hoch loDpu'.
> "Every man dies but all men do not truly live."
>
> Interesting...why did you pluralize loD in the second part but
> not the first?
If a noun following {Hoch} is singular, {Hoch} is translated as "each". If
the noun is plural, {Hoch} is translated as "all".
I think this example would be much better translated as:
Hegh Hoch loD 'ach yInchu' 'op loDpu' neH.
The noun {'op} basically means "some" with the number unspecified, so this
means, "Every man dies, but only some men truly live." An alternative would
be {Hegh Hoch loD 'ach yInchu' loDpu' puS neH}, but that takes a step toward
specifying the quantity of men that is perhaps implied, but not stated in
the original English offered above.
I think the earlier translations suffer from trying to remain too literal
and adhere too much to the specifically chosen words of the English, rather
than to the meaning.
> : tlhab tIqlIj. Datlha'meH toDuj yIghajnIs.
> : (Your heart is free. Have the courage to follow her.)
> : <Your heart is free. You must have the courage to follow it.>
>
> First, {-nIS} is not used with imperatives:
>
> yIghaj "Have it!"
> Daghaj "You have it."
> DaghajnIS "You must have it."
>
> I didn't see that ... for my own edification, where is this rule located?
It's not a rule. The redundancy is merely nonsensical in most cases.
Consider the difference in English between these two commands:
"Have the courage to follow her!"
"Need to have the courage to follow her!"
See?
Necessity is already implied by the imperative voice. That's why we call it
"imperative".
> Second, "have the courage" is an English idiom for "be brave"
> {yoH}. E.g.:
>
> QaghmeylIj tIchID, yIyoH.
> Have the courage to admit your mistakes. TKW
>
> Thus:
>
> tlhab tIqlIj. Datlha'meH yIyoH.
>
> or following the more concise TKW example:
>
> tlhab tIqlIj. yItlha', yIyoH.
>
> In Klingon, {ghaj} "have, possess" usually has a physical,
> tangible object --
> although there is the one odd idiom:
>
> pIch vIghajbe'.
> It's not my fault. TKD
>
> In general, whenever you see a phrase with the English helping
> verbs "have",
> "do", "make", "be", etc., don't translate them literally into
> Klingon, but
> look
> for a one word synonym. E.g. {'uH} "have a hangover", {wuQ} "have a
> headache"
> or today's Word of the Day {Qoj} "make war".
>
> If, however, you insist on {toDuj yIghaj!}, consider using the
> more evocative
> {qajunpaQ} "*kajunpakt* (courage, audacity)" from KGT.
> >>
>
> I shall...but I do not necessarily insist on that interpretation.
Good.
> Thanks for
> your help!
>
> juDmoS
charghwI' 'utlh