tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 14 13:39:25 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Tao Te Ching; Chp. 11
> [A]: I do hope {rutlh naQHom} can be used to indicate a "spoke". If not, I'd
> have to think of something else. Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.
I'm sure it's not how a klingon would say it, but that is how I read it.
vIyajchu'.
> [B]: "join together"; not being a native speaker of English I'm unable to
> decide whether "join each other" works better than "join together".
I didn't have any problem with muvchuq. If you don't like muvchuq you could
try ghom or rarlu'.
> [C]: {tunbogh nagh}: "ceramic material which is soft" – the closest I
> could get to "clay".
When I first read this, I thought it a bit weird, but then realized that I
couldn't come up with anything better.
( http://education.wes.army.mil/navigation/lessons/8/sdemols8lv1-2.html )
> vaj vay' lughajmo' Doch, lo'laH.
> vay' luHutlhmo', lI'.[D]
>
> Thus what things have makes them valuable,
> but what they lack makes them useful.
>
> [D]: The English version is closer to:
>
> vaj vay'mo' lughajbogh Doch, lo'laH.
> vay'mo' luHutlhbogh, lI'.
>
> I prefer the Klingon version in the poem above because ... hmm...it
> seems less complex. However, I can be persuaded.
I find them both understandable.
The difference is not just that of complexity. The first concentrates on the
ACTION of having or lacking. The second concentrates on the NOUN that is being
had or lacked.
Does the original text give any clue of where the focus should be?
DloraH, 'utlh