tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 19:05:54 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: qatlh vay' vInuQ :)
> > 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.
"A mob that can think is a rare occurrence" implies that there are indeed
mobs out there that can think, and that it is simply rare. Using [if] makes
it a hypothetical situation, "If a mob that could think did possibly exist,
even tho they exist (in this hypothetical situation) it would be a rare
occurrence."
> > 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?
When you and your friends chat (in english), is every sentence spoken
completely clear and unambiguous?
DloraH