tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 02 11:58:37 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Cogito ergo sum (was RE: Numbers with pronouns)

Christopher Kidder ([email protected]) 

One could argue that the 0- prefix on {taH} implies "it".  Which, yes, you
could say was an undefined object.  Or, you could fill in the assumed object
of "Life".  Or, perhaps, not unlike real Shakespeare, the choices made could
be postulated for hundreds of years and never clearly defined except within
any given director's production.  And, seeing as how only small segments of
the Klingon Hamlet have ever been produced, a definitive answer won't be
forthcoming any time soon.
Q'DroS vestai-gIln
Horey'So in Hamlet in  "Klingons and Shakespeare"

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Christopher Doty <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:17, Mark J. Reed <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Sorry, Chris, but you lost me. What is your complaint here?
> >
> > Sequence of events: Okrand was asked to translate "To be or not to be"
> > for Star Trek VI.  He came up with {taH pagh taHbe'}, inventing the
> > verb {taH} on the spot, obviously a back-formation from the suffix.
> >
> > Later, Okrand mentioned the phrase in KGT, offering the more literal
> > back-translation above: "[one] continues or [one] does not continue".
> > I don't see how that is significantly different from your "s/he/it
> > endures or s/he/it doesn't endure" rendering, aside from the choice of
> > gloss ("continue" is listed as the primary gloss of the verb {taH}, no
> > doubt because of its origins in the aspect marker) and the use of
> > [one] rather than [s/he/it] for "unspecified third person singular"..
> >
> > I could understand complaining about the choice of Klingon to
> > represent the English, but I don't understand your objection to the
> > English used to render the Klingon, or how it's "odd", or any less
> > "active" than your version (since the verbs are in the active voice in
> > both cases, and neither verb is semantically all that active).
>
> Sorry, I think my shock lead me to be unclear (well, I'm often a bit
> unclear, but the shock didn't help..).
>
> I was responding to the fact that, as far as I know, we don't have
> examples of a bare verb functioning as a sort of infinitive.  The
> Klingon, with the zero prefix, implies to me that there is a specific
> 3rd person which either continues or doesn't.  I would think we'd have
> something like <taHlu' pagh taHbe'lu'>. This also better fits Okrand's
> translation of "one."  Without the <-lu'> (or some other trick), you
> could ask "Who continues or doesn't continue?" but this question is
> nonsensical with the meaning of "to be or not to be..."
>
> So, yeah.. Maybe Okrand was just flustered or something, I dunno...
> Or else it's Hamlet, and so has some weird grammar or something.  I
> just don't like it.... :((
>
>
>
>


-- 
Christopher O. Kidder
Artistic Director, Commedia Beauregard
www.cbtheatre.org
www.christopherokidder.com

Back to archive top level