tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 15 14:45:30 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: the whys and whenfors of translation
- From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: the whys and whenfors of translation
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:45:26 -0400
> [email protected] 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