tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 01 05:52:58 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: More on Ray Charles

bob mcfaddin ([email protected]) 

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


QeS lagh <[email protected]> wrote:
ja'pu' juDmoS:
>ghobe', Hoch ram SoHmo' jInaj 'e' DaSovbe' (no, you don't know that you 
>cause me to dream every night)

jIjang:
>maj. For the original "You don't know the one who dreams of you at night" I 
>would have done it a bit differently, but this is fine.

jang DloraH:
>The english implies that it is the person (which is doing the dreaming) 
>that is not known.
>The klingon implies that it is the act of dreaming that is not known about.

True. As I said in my original correction, to be more faithful to the 
original English I would have said something a bit different: {Hoch ram 
SoHmo' najbogh nuv DaSovbe'} "you don't know the person who dreams because 
of you every night", but I think the sentiment is pretty much the same 
behind both versions.

I do notice that in the Klingon, {Hoch ram SoHmo' najbogh nuv DaSovbe'} is a 
bit ambiguous: it could be either the dreaming or the knowing that takes 
place every night. But I suppose the semantics only give one clear 
interpretation in this context: when could you ever use "you don't know that 
person every night"? 

Savan,

QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian


This... this is why I love working with this language. English is inherently rich with ways to say things...and translating requires not only that you know the words, but what meanings are being carried by them.

The entire premise of the song lies in that the singer has secrets...feelings for the one sung to that he will not share. The song is not an explanation of these feelings to the one to whom it is sung, rather an aside to the audience that "you think you know me, yes.. but you don't know the real me. There are things about me that, for my own reasons, I will not tell you. In this particular instance, the writer bemoans the fact that "you don't know the one, who dreams of you each night". That is to say, the "me" that you think you know doesn't feel that way...he's just a friend.But, deep down inside me, in a place I won't let you see, there is a "me" that dreams about you...all the time. Unrequited love. A universal theme. So, it is both aspects of the person and the act that are unknown. So, I went with "you don't know that I dream each night because of you." While not as faithful to the original text, I feel that it carries the intent more faithfully.

Speaking of asides, I'm still interested to know your response to my explanation re: DaSovchu'be' vs DaSovbe'chu' . I'm trying to state here the premise spelled out above... that you don't perfectly know me...like you think you do. So, I attached the negating rover not to the verb Sov (to say "You don't know me perfectly", but to the suffix -chu', to say that you know me, but not perfectly. Perhaps a subtle argument of semantics...perhaps not. Does the placement of the negating rover subtly alter the meaning of the word as I imply, or does it not? And, would the aforementioned premise be more accurately carried by something like DaSovchu'Ha' ? I originally dismissed this because there was no actual change of state.. but I wonder about it's use in Do'Ha' (unfortunate)...there was not actually a change of state here...it didn't go from being fortunate to being unfortunate... more along the lines of "misfortune". So, can you know me "misperfectly"?



jajvam lururbogh jajmey'e' lutu'lu' muja'ta' SoSoywI'

juDmoS
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Back to archive top level