tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 17 14:29:02 2011

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: chomuSHa''a'? ghorgh chomuS!? - Question about muSHa'

Felix Malmenbeck ([email protected]) 

ghItlh lojmIt tI'wI' nuv,
> The word "love" is so vague, it translates poorly with ANY Klingon word.
> It's better to get specific about what you mean when translating.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Actually, this applies even to Earth languages; I've experienced it several times when doing translations between Swedish and English. If you were to ask me "What's the Swedish word for 'love' (when used as a verb)?", I'd reply "Älska. This word is used both of romantic love, family love, love between friends or when you just really like something." However, when translating English text where this word is used, I often use "gilla" or "tycka om", which are more similar in meaning to "like". There are even cases where I'd use the word "love" in English but the phrase "rätt förtjust i" ("fairly fond of") in Swedish.

There aren't any languages with a one-to-one connection between verbs; it's better to think of a word as representing a set of meanings, and of translation as the act of finding a word in another language whose set of meanings intersect that of the original word and which is appropriate to the situation at hand.
Illustration I threw together because I love Venn diagrams: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/8/venndialove.png/

I usually use parHa'qu' when love is used as in "like a lot", and usually translate "I love you" as bangwI'/parmaqqay'wI' SoH.

I actually don't think there necessarily needs to be a Klingon word meaning "to love romantically". One could think of love not as something one does, but as a relation to another person. In that case, having a word for "to love" seems about as necessary as having one meaning "to be the brother of" or "to be the sister of". Klingon does not appear to have any such words, yet we have no trouble expressing siblinghood. Why, then, should the lack of a word for "to love romantically" stop us from talking about romantic love?

bangwI' ghaH luwSIy'e'. - I love Lhrr'zhi.
jow'nIy' bang ghaH cha'chI''e'. - Zhon'i loves Xa'chee.

//loghaD

________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of lojmIt tI'wI' nuv [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 21:55
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: chomuSHa''a'? ghorgh chomuS!? - Question about muSHa'

The word "love" is so vague, it translates poorly with ANY Klingon word. It's better to get specific about what you mean when translating.

Klingon is not a code or cypher for English. It is a language. It doesn't have a word that covers the wide range of unrelated meanings English speakers have for "love". So, when you encounter the English word "love" and you translate into Klingon, you have to decide what that person meant in English and translate the meaning, not the word, using standard Klingon vocabulary. There are plenty of ways to describe specific meanings of the word "love". What we don't have is a single, vague word that universally replaces "love".

pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv



On Jun 16, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:

> I fairly often see the word muSHa' being used as a way of saying "love", supposedly due to the logic that because muS is stronger than par, muSHa' should be stronger than parHa'.
> I personally do not much agree with this logic; -Ha' is used to signify that something previously done has become undone (and one must not first hate somebody in order to love them), or that something is done wrongly (and while I cannot be certain, I'd be surprised if Klingons equated loving with hating incorrectly); it's not a polar opposite marker.
> par exemple:
>
> "I had my Annotated Klingon Dictionary with me, and Marc spent some time
> looking through it.  We discussed some stuff I had added marked
> "inferred" - mostly compunds or verb+{Ha'} entries which seemed pretty
> clear.  Well, I need to go through and look at some of them closer.  One
> example that sticks in my head is {jotlh}, which is given in TKD as
> "take down".  I had added {jotlhHa'} as "put up", but Marc pointed out
> that {-Ha'} not only negates but changes state (undoes), and that "put
> back up" would be a better translation."
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file?97-04-07-email.txt&get=source
>
> So, one does not jotlhHa' something unless somebody has originally jotlh:ed it.
>
> "It may be that not everything has a default.  Note, for example, {QuchHa'}
> "be unhappy" and {'IQ} "be sad."  These two words don't mean quite the same
> thing: {QuchHa'} is made up of {Quch} "be happy" plus the negative suffix
> {-Ha'}, suggesting a change from being happy to not being happy. {'IQ} does
> not have this connotation, nor does {Quchbe'} "be not happy" (or, if you
> prefer, "not be happy")."
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file?98-03-02a-news.txt&get=source
>
> Note that there's no indication that QuchHa' is stronger than Quchbe'.
>
> "Which brings us to {Qochbe'} and {QochHa'}.  Both consist of the verb
> {Qoch} "disagree" plus a negative suffix.  Parallel to the example above
> with {yaj} "understand,"  {Qochbe'} implies an absence of disagreeing
> (hence "agree"); {QochHa'} implies that any disagreeing was misplaced or
> misconstrued or perhaps has been "undone.""
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file?98-03-02b-news.txt&get=source
>
> Again, QochHa' does not appear to be stronger than Qochbe'; the two are simply different.
>
> "On the other hand, when the only way to express a certain idea is by
> modifying a word (for example, by adding a suffix) rather than using an
> entirely different word, perhaps one can argue that the nonmodified word is
> the default.  Thus, the only (known) way to express the opposite of {par}
> "dislike" is by adding a negative suffix to {par}.  Unlike {QuchHa'} "be
> unhappy" and {'IQ} "be sad," there's no choice when it comes to "like";
> you've got to use a word based on {par}: {parHa'}.  It appears that the
> only kind of "like" there is is the "undoing" or "misapplication" of
> "dislike."  (Of course, you could also say {parbe'} "like" or, more
> literally, "not dislike,"  using the negative suffix {-be'} "not"; but
> {parbe'} is also based on {par}.  {parHa'} is heard more frequently than
> {parbe'}, however, and this may be a hint at the usual way a Klingon looks
> at things.)
>
> Interestingly (and bolstering the idea that "dislike" is a default),
> there's also the word {muS} "hate" (which is presumably stronger somehow
> than {par} "dislike").  It also has no known opposite except for the
> suffixed forms:  {muSHa'} "dis-hate" or "unhate"; {muSbe'} "not hate.""
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file?98-03-02a-news.txt&get=source
>
> The way I read this, parHa' isn't really stronger than parbe'; the face that parHa' is used more often than parbe' is more likely a hint about how Klingons regard the liking of things.
>
> As I see it, it's possible to muSHa' somebody and par them at the same time, for instance if you've gotten over your hatred for somebody but simply prefer not to be around him/her.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> //loghaD
>
> P.S. Another relevant source on the subject:
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file?96-12-12b-news.txt&get=source
> D.S.
>
>

Back to archive top level