tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 11 19:31:57 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: More proverbs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Boozer [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: re: More proverbs
>
>
> De'vID:
> > qech Qub yab 'ej lajbe'laH, vaj nIvqu' yab.
> > -- Aristotle
> > ("It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain
> > a thought without accepting it.")
>
> SarrIS:
> : I apologize in advance for my nested relative clauses. I'm sure someone
> : will object. This is just the way it came out:
> :
> : 'Itlh qech lajnISbe'bogh qelchu'bogh yab'e'.
>
> Not bad: {'Itlh} "be advanced, be highly developed". {nIv} "be
> superior" works
> too. I'm not sure what {-chu'} is doing there, however.
My thought here is that anyone can consider an idea, even if half-heartedly.
Only an educated mind perfectly considers an idea that does not need to
accept.
I also thought that {'Itlh} works better than {nIv} because I was looking
more at the "be highly developed" part of the definition. How do you develop
a mind? A mind may be superior by nature, yet less developed. Only
experience and education can develop a mind.
That's not to say that {nIv} is a bad choice. Mostly, it depends on how you
interpret the meaning behind the proverb. Similarly, we might consider
{nen}, depending on how we interpret the term "mature".
> To
> consider an idea
> is the same as to entertain it; they are synonyms, at least in my
> dialect. Add
> {-laH}, though, for being *able* to entertain the idea.
I thought I was reaching for something else by intentionally omitting
{-laH}, but on further consideration, I think you are dead right. I should
have included {-laH}.
> Still, Aristotle's point was that being able to entertain such
> ideas was how
> one can identify an *educated* or trained mind, not merely an advanced or
> clever one, which might come naturally. This is something one
> generally has to
> be taught how to do.
Again, consider what is meant by "be highly developed".
> : Do not try this at home. If pain or swelling persists, discontinue use.
>
> I think we need yet another relative clause (yikes!):
>
> 'Itlh qech lajnISbe'bogh qellaHbogh yab'e' lughojmoHlu'bogh.
>
> {yab lughojmoHlu'bogh} "a mind which someone has
> taught/instructed" -- on the
> model of {to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh} "stuffed tobbaj legs". (You might add
> {-pu'} to indicate that the teaching has been completed but, since Okrand
> didn't think it necessary for the presumably completely stuffed
> tobbaj legs, we
> can safely omit it.)
I can go either way on the third relative clause. I don't think it is
necessary, but I do see the added specificity of including it. Consider
{lughojmoHlu'mo'} as an alternative. I'm ambivalent about this, but it is
worth throwing against the wall to see if it sticks.
> But we've again avoided Aristotle's point: A mind able to
> entertain a thought
> without accepting it is one of the signs of education. {magh} "indicate,
> reveal" works for this. I think that since we have such a high-falutin'
> sentence already, we might well venture a {-ghach}:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOT THAT! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
> yab'e' lughojmoHlu'bogh magh qech lajnISbe'bogh qellaHghach.
I wanted to hate this, but I actually like it. I think {magh} really helps
untangle the relative clauses. I even think the {-ghach} works. It is rare
that I think a {-ghach} works, but this is a beautiful exception to the
norm. The nominative meaning is clearly attached to the {-laH} suffix,
exactly like {-ghach} is supposed to.
Of course, a battle axe is also capable of revealing an educated mind...
Literally.
I don't think the {-'e'} is needed on {yab}, though. That's really my only
problem with the whole sentence, and that's not much of a problem. If it is
there, it exists for emphasis only. The relative clause no longer needs it,
since there is no noun acting as subject of {ghojmoH}. Meanwhile,
{qellaHghach} could use {-'e'} to make it clear that the ability reveals the
mind, not the idea.
Now for another radical approach:
qech lajbe'lu'bogh qelchu'meH 'ItlhnIS yab. ghojnISchu'ta'.
Remember that in Klingon, the root word is learning, not teaching. While we
see "education" as a process that is externally provided by an institution,
Klingons see education as something that is internal to the student.
Educators are those who cause this internal process to take place, but the
process is in the student, not the teacher. Likely, a more literal
translation would replace the adjective "educated" with the archaic
disyllable word "learned".
> How's that? (Anyone remember offhand what the original Greek was?)
I'm really enjoying all these versions of the translation. voragh did a fine
job on this one. I don't wish to disrespect that at all by tossing yet
another version back into the fray.
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
SarrIS