tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 12:44:41 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlh vay' vInuQ :)
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, Alan Anderson wrote:
> ja' ...Paul:
> >The other reason I translate my own stuff into "more elegant English" is
> >because I know that sometimes what seems to be the right way to translate
> >something on the surface is not always correct.
>
> Whether or not you intend to, you're displaying a consistent bias in the
> way you treat the Klingon messages presented here. You keep talking about
> them as "translations". Recognize that in many cases, the messages are
> composed in Klingon, not translated from another language. The Klingon is
> the original.
Perhaps. Although I think in general, if I'm more certain of the intent,
I tend to use the more elegant translations. It's when I'm NOT certain of
the intent that I break it down so that there's more clear comparison of
the parts of speech.
> >The original statement
> >was a perfect example -- a sentence that was pretty much legal, but had
> >a greatly different translation when DloraH read it than what you intended
> >-- however, DloraH would not have thought there was a problem with the
> >sentence, because there was no way for him to know what you really meant.
>
> That's not really an example of someone translating the Klingon
> incorrectly. It's an example of uncear context. It could have happened
> almost as easily if the entire exchange had been in English.
>
> "Angry mobs are destroying things."
> "Mobs are stupid."
> "If mobs could think, it would be a rare occurrence."
>
> Is "it" referring to the thinking, or to the destroying?
Destroying. "If" does not indicate an action is occurring or will occur
in the future. I think any English teacher would agree with me on this
one. If you wanted to refer to the act of thinking, the English would
more likely be something like "It would be a rare occurrence *for* mobs to
think." Or the event would be cast into a subject, "A mob that can think
is a rare occurrence." I don't think the English is nearly as unclear as
the Klingon.
> The literal translation of the Klingon is actually more helpful:
> "If mobs can think, it is a rare occurrence."
Ah, but you've not actually done a literal translation here... Don't
forget /wanI'/ had the /-vetlh/ suffix. "If mobs can think, *that*
occurrence is rare." or more closely related to your translation, "If mobs
can think, that is a rare occurrence."
> There's no clear subjunctive in Klingon grammar.
Then it should be recast to make sure the thought IS clear, no?
> >...laHwIj vIDubmeH Hol'e' Saja'chuqmoH..
> >
> >...(Okay, I'm really stretching thin on /Saja'chuqmoH/ -- how
> >would you say "I discuss the language"?)
>
> Hol maqelmeH maja'chuq
>
> One person does not a discussion make. For that, {Hol qel SoQwIj}.
But one person can *cause* a discussion. /nuja'chuqmoH/ would be
"he/she/it causes us to confer", no? But unfortunately there's no I->us
prefix. /Saja'chuqmoH/ would be "I cause you(pl) to confer" -- is that
not closer than "We confer in order to consider the language"?
bIjDaj wIwuqmeH nuja'chuqmoH nunuQmo'
"Because he annoys us, he causes us to confer to decide his punishment."
I'm not disputing your alternatives, I'm just wondering if you are saying
that /Saja'chuqmoH/ is wrong because of a grammatical reason, or if you
just disagree that one person can cause a discussion?
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"In the end, everything is a gag." -- Charlie Chaplin