tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 14 14:39:31 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Tao Te Ching; Chp. 11
- From: "Agnieszka Solska" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Tao Te Ching; Chp. 11
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:39:36 +0000
>>[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'.
Well, it's not the Klingon word I have problems with but the English
counterpart {{:-). You see, it's the English text that's a translation of
the Klingon one I want them *both* to sound fine.
>>[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 )
{{:-o Dalqu'bej!
>>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?
This is really useful!!! The whole point of Chapter 11 is to show that both
actions (or states) - not only HAVING but also LACKING - are essential to
our existence. qatlho'.
tugh latlh 'ay' vIlab.
'ISqu'
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com