tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 25 17:59:32 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Perfect Sangha
I need to speak out in support of what ghunchu'wI' is saying, even though he
is saying it so clearly that I can add little to the message itself. How
many French students experiencing the language for the first time are
immediately inspired to write a history of humanity in French before they
can carry on a normal conversation with a French person? Klingon isn't
different. It is a language. If you can't express your own ideas with it
clearly, you certainly can't express someone else's ideas with it yet. To
try to do so disrespects both the original writing and the language you seek
to translate it into.
SarrIS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 1:05 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: KLBC: Perfect Sangha
>
>
> ja' Robert Bracey <[email protected]>:
> >...At the rate I'm going at the
> >moment (this is a but pre-emptive) I think I will be
> comfortable with the
> >grammar long before I have enough vocab to read or write comfortably
> >(without constant reference to a dictionary).
>
> qaghuHnISmoH. bImotlhchugh, bIQaghbej. nom pab Daghojchu' 'e' DapIHba'.
> bImuj 'e' vIHar. pab Daghojta' 'e' DaQubDI', tugh bImer'egh. pIj
> nIbechmoH QaghHommeylIjmey. chorurchugh, ghaytan bIqonmeH yap mu'tay'lIj
> bIlaDmeH mu'ghom DapoQbe'pa'. chorurchugh, bIlaDlaHchu'DI', ghaytan
> bIqeqnIStaHqu' puppa' pab SovlIj.
>
> Unless you are *extremely* gifted or extraordinarily focused, I'm certain
> that you'll be quite surprised for a very long time at how often your
> comfort is disturbed by simple grammatical errors. If you're like me,
> you'll probably be able to remember enough vocabulary to write before you
> can give up a dictionary when reading, but you'll need much more practice
> before you can consistently produce grammatically correct writing.
>
> rambe' mu'tay'. rambe' pab. 'ach potlhchu' qeq'e'. po'choHmeH vay',
> laDnIS 'ej qonnIS 'ej ja'chuqnIS ghaH latlhpu' je.
>
> Neither vocabulary nor grammar are unimportant, but it is *practice* -- in
> reading, writing, and conversation -- which produces fluency.
>
> >...BUT give us beginners a
> >break, we all come to Klingon with some sort of grand project in
> mind (mine
> >is to do with writing a history of the Earth in Klingon).
>
> ghuy'cha'. jInmol'a' qelpa' taghwI', taghnIS rIntaH. tlhetlh SovDaj.
> qatlh mughnISqu' nuv, yappa' laHDaj? le''a' tlhIngan Hol? rur'a' France
> Hol ghojwI'? rur'a' 'eSpanHol ghojwI'?
>
> Grand projects can wait until a beginner has finished "beginning". What
> *is* it about Klingon that makes people think they can just jump in and
> start translating Sun Tzu before they've even learned enough of the
> language to carry on a conversation? Do people learning French or Spanish
> exhibit the same malady?
>
> >I think we also
> >realise pretty quickly that this is a far off dream, but its
> nice to have a
> >dream.
>
> wIch wuvchugh najwI', vIt tlhojDI', pum. ngabmo' wIch, tlhIngan Hol
> tIvlaHbe'; rut 'e' wuq vempu'wI'. poH lI' lulo'Ha'. vaj nom najwI'
> vIvemmoH 'e' vImaS.
>
> Having seen dozens of such dreams evaporate when faced by the truth of
> reality, often resulting in the frustrated dreamer giving up on Klingon
> entirely, I am not convinced that having them is "nice". Until they
> realize how far off the dream is, they are often wasting both their time
> and ours as they pour their energies into producing flawed translations
> instead of honing their abilities.
>
> >A few Questions
> >
> >1)Couldn't find a word for example, so I used 'oSwI' as thing which
> >represents. Have I missed a more obvious choice?
>
> {chovnatlh} "specimen" isn't necessarily obvious, but it's the word that
> typically gets used on the list when English would use "example".
> {'oSwI'}
> is reasonable given its literal meaning, but it is also listed separately
> in the dictionary as a term meaning "emissary".
>
> >2)Have I used -lu' correctly? I meant to express the idea of
> being understood.
>
> You said {QIjnISmeH *monastic community yajlu'}. The English you gave was
> "Monastic community still needs to be explained for someone to
> understand."
> {-lu'} seems to be used appropriately, but I think you placed
> {-meH} on the
> wrong verb. Correcting that will change the structure of the sentence
> enough that I can't tell you with any real confidence that {-lu'} is
> correct.
>
> >3)I used a rhetorical question as I wasn't sure how to say "others have
> >wondered why I said that". I came up with 'e' vIja 'e' tlhoblu'.
> This seems
> >to be close but doesn't really express the why. Any help?
>
> *I* don't think it seems all that close. First, because {ja'} as
> a verb of
> saying usually has the person being told as its object, {...'e' vIja'} is
> an extremely odd construction. Second, using {tlhob} this way makes me
> think that someone is requesting that you say something; this is where the
> "why" you want is lost. Finally, there's also the pronoun {net} which is
> typically used instead of {'e'} when the subject of the verb following it
> is indefinite -- {net V} is generally preferable to {'e' Vlu'}.
>
> To express the idea "why" when you're not really asking a question, it's
> probably best to choose a non-question word to do it. In this case, I'd
> suggest {meq} "reason":
>
> {meqwIj luyajbe'law' latlhpu'} "Others seem not to understand my reason."
>
> {SIv} "wonder" suggests itself here, but it is a troublesome word. Okrand
> once wrote that it can mean "wonder if", using it in a phrase like
> {tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh 'e' vISIv} "I wonder if you speak Klingon." But we
> don't know how, or even if, it can be used to express "wonder
> about", as in
> a hypothetical ?{meqwIj luSIv} "they wonder about my reason."
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
>
>
>