Re: the whys and whenfors of translation

[Captain Krankor <krankor@yay.tim.org>]

> 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".

Personally, I think Voragh is on the right track here.  The phrase
"Separate Worlds" isn't talking about a spacial relationship.
"Separate" does not mean "Separated".  Again, I too am coming into
this late and lack context; maybe in the desired context it really
does mean spacially separated.  But on the surface, I think a far
better translation would be qo'mey pIm.  Just my two cents worth.

		--Krankor