tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 11 19:27:41 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vIghro'vetlh
- From: McArdle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: vIghro'vetlh
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:27:01 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=xXg69IybV3mBdmc6MJe5ke9J94z3yzFTx2MKOtqP5XCsdqvzqK8VmYmpDQ2bj2koVk/J34UkduW93TJZ8rdcHydA+gB1FdAO4sPQyxH5lTRxUQJ3fUwdeBGQMtU79f9slB5Uqfj8LYBzmvMRAbj2qLeFbz7FM0MqjD47C2+SUAY=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
--- Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There's another factor which isn't obvious. You
> asked about the
> "style" of what you wrote. Many of the people in a
> position to
> answer know Klingon as a spoken, conversational
> language. Writing
> tends to be more formal and complex. Email shifts
> back and forth
> from one to the other.
>
> > This was my attempt to render Data's comment to
> Spot
> > in "A Fistful of Datas",
> >
> > "I find it extremely difficult to predict what
> you
> > will find acceptable."
>
> Ah, it was a translation. No wonder it came out so
> convoluted.
> Comments on the style of a translation are only
> helpful if your goal
> is to produce translations.
>
Not an unworthy goal, I would think. KLI did quite a
bit of it at one time. And I'm not sure I agree in
any case. Surely one of the goals of translation is
to produce a result that, while accurately
representing the thoughts expressed in the original,
reads (as much as possible) as if it had been written
directly in the target language. The style of a
translation, by this standard, should be judged by
similar criteria as an original production in the same
language.
> Note that Data is prone to rather formal, stilted
> speech. What he
> says is rarely going to be directly translatable
> into straightforward
> Klingon.
>
> > I found ghunchu'wI''s suggestion a little too
> choppy
> > for my taste (which is, perhaps, not sufficiently
> > Klingonized).
>
> My intent was to provide contrast, so the suggestion
> was more
> "choppy" than I would usually have written.
>
> > Would the following compromise be
> > acceptable?
> >
> > {nuq Dalajqang? jIloymeH Qatlhqu' 'e' vItu'.}
>
> The {'e' vItu'} part just seems superfluous. What
> does it add to the
> sentence besides wordiness?
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
It adds the idea that the difficulty mentioned is
specifically the speaker's; for all we know,
predicting Spot's likes and dislikes may be dirt
simple for anyone else. (Assuming that the fact that
it's in the original, where it's no more or less
superfluous than it is my Klingon version, isn't a
sufficient point in its favor.)
qatlho'
-- mI'qey
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com