tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 16 09:56:45 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: translation

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' Voragh:
> 'ISqu':
>> I have a problem with this line. To me {nganpu' SaH} doesn't mean
>> "current inhabitants." It means "the inhabitants present,"
>> i.e. "those inhabitants who are not absent, who are not away,
>> missing or gone." I see the qualities of being current and being
>> present as closely related but not exactly the same.
>> The fact that someone happens to be present at a location at
>> a given moment doesn't make this person one of the location's
>> current inhabitants. He or she could be present at the location
>> as a guest. Conversely, you do not stop being a "current inhabitant"
>> of, say, an apartment each time you are not present there.
>
> In 2007 this is a moot point.  How many Terrans are currently off- 
> world?  <g>

maQochbe' jIH 'ISqu' je.  I too think "current" and "present" are  
separate ideas.  The phrase "current inhabitants" is a temporal  
concept, not a locative one.

Further, I get the impression that {SaH} has a default context of  
approximately visual range (or perhaps "sensor range").  On the rock  
in question, I wouldn't interpret it as talking about the entire  
planetary population.  I'd expect it to be referring to the people  
actually nearby, looking at it.  It's just not the right idea.

> At first I too quibbled over {SaH} and toyed with using {DaHjaj}  
> "today" for the idea of "current":
>
>    yuQvam luvu'Ha'mo' DaHjaj nganpu'

I like this.

> But on further thought, I now think {SaH} "be present (not absent)"  
> is probably fine here.  We have no examples of it or it's antonym  
> {Dach} "be absent" in canon and thus don't know how it's used in  
> Klingon (as opposed to English).

We do have plenty of indications that place terms don't get applied  
to time concepts in Klingon.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level