tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 17 10:18:04 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: "words, words, words"
qeyS requests:
> Unfortunately undersigned does not have the Klingon version of
> Hamlet, though I would be extraordinarily pleased if someone could
> supply to me the Klingon translation of the "What are you reading
> my lord. Words, words, words" passage.
Act II, Scene II (page 58/59 in paperback version)
polonyuS: [pegh'egh] nuqjatlh jay'? puqbe'wI' buStaH qar'a'? 'a
mughovbe'pu'. verengan jIH 'e' noHHa'. loj, lojqu' yabDaj. 'a
jIQuptaHvIS je jIH, reH muSHa'qu'bogh tIqwIjmo' jIbechbej ---
ghaH vIrurba'pu'. vIjatlhqa'. nuq DalaD, joHwI'?
Hamlet: mu', mu', mu'.
polonyuS: nuq luqel, joHwI'?
Hamlet: vangmeH qel 'Iv?
polonyuS: 'ach De''e' luqelbogh mu' 'oH nuq'e', joHwI'?
POLONIUS: [Aside] How say you by that? Still harping on my
daughter: yet he knew me not at first; he said I
was a fishmonger: he is far gone, far gone: and
truly in my youth I suffered much extremity for
love; very near this. I'll speak to him again.
What do you read, my lord?
HAMLET: Words, words, words.
POLONIUS: What is the matter, my lord?
HAMLET: Between who?
POLONIUS: I mean, the matter that you read, my lord.
Se'noj:
> > This seems to be bad grammar, or is it one of those things that "just are,
> > so shut up"? Wouldn't "Words, words, words" be "mu'mey, mu'mey, mu'mey",
> > to indicate the plural?
DloraH quotes TKD section 3.3.2:
>"... the lack of a specific suffix for plural does not always indicate
>that the noun
>is singular. In Klingon, a noun without a plural suffix may still refer to
>more than one entity. [...] Under certain circumstances, the only way to
>know whether the noun refers to one or more than one entity is by context."
DloraH comments (from another thread):
>The problem is "translating". For symmetry and poetry one needs to create
the
>art using the language, and not translate it from another language.
Indeed. Translating Shakespeare involves much more than merely translating
the surface grammar. In a good translation you also need to render the
poetry and meter of the original. If you can't reproduce the original form
of the English - something which is nearly impossible in a foreign language
- another approach is to choose a poetical form in the target language
which provides a similar effect. The exact wording of a translated line
has to consider not only vocabulary and grammar, but also syllable count,
rhyme, meter, alliteration, rhythm and intonation of the line as a whole,
etc.
I admit that I've never been very good at "getting" poetry - I'll leave it
to those more qualified than me to judge the quality of the Klingon poetry
- but I imagine that in translating "Hamlet" Nick and Guido were trying to
reproduce Shakespeare's iambic pentameter. This would explain why they
phrased things a certain way: to achieve a desired pattern of stressed and
unstressed syllables in the line.
Looking at the passage in question, you'll notice that the original line
consisted of three stressed words of one-syllable: "Words, words,
words." Since use of the plural suffixes is never required in Klingon,
{mu', mu', mu'} reproduces the feel, if not the plural suffixes, of the
original. (Also, the fact that {mu'} is repeated three times hints that
they refer to plural words.) *{mu'mey, mu'mey, mu'mey} would have both
doubled the syllable count as well as using three words of a stressed
followed by an unstressed syllable. The rhythm is different.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons