Re: the whys and whenfors of translation

[Steven Boozer <sboozer@midway.uchicago.edu>]

cheesbro@rpa.net writes:
> >> "Worlds Apart" which they translated as /chevbogh qo'mey/, which I in
> >> turn back-translate as "Worlds which separate".  So far none of the
> >> oppinions that I've seen match this idea.

peHruS:
> >There is also the possibility of rarbe'bogh cha' qo'mey.

ghunchu'wI':
>But "two worlds which do not connect" has exactly the same problem as
>"Worlds which separate."   [....]
>{rar} "connect" means "join [things] together".  The subject does the
>connecting; the objects are the things connected.  It isn't "be connected"
>any more than {chev} is "be separated".

I may have missed some of the discussion, but we have a similar example 
from "Power Klingon" with the verb {ghoD} "stuff":  {to'baj 'uS 
lughoDlu'bogh} "stuffed tobbaj legs" or "tobbaj legs which someone 
stuffed".  Like {chev} and  {rar}, {ghoD} is transitive, but Okrand solved 
that problem by using {-lu'}.

So, using this as a model we have {qo' luchevlu'bogh} or "separated worlds" 
- which is about as close to "Separate Worlds" as I think we can get using 
the extant vocabulary.  If this is too complicated for a title, you could 
recast to something simpler:  {qo'mey pIm} "different worlds", {qo'mey Sar} 
"varied worlds", or just {cha' qo'} "two worlds".



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons