[3605] in tlhIngan-Hol
this 'n' that
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Mar 5 19:58:50 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 09:17:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: Captain Krankor's message of Thu, 3 Mar 94 17:06:27 -0700 <9403040
003.AA06113@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com>
>From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
>Date: Thu, 3 Mar 94 17:06:27 -0700
>Some quick odds and ends:
>>>For "revenge is a dish best served cold":
>>
>>>bortaS jabnISlu'chugh, nay' bIrjaj.
>>
>>>I assume I have done "-jaj inversion" correctly here?
>>>-QumpIn 'avrIn
>>Um, we really don't have any evidence for a global "-jaj inversion." I
>>think our esteemed Krankor, author of the article which discussed it, would
>>be the first to admit that these inversions represent old, fossilized
>>forms, and for newly-coined usages of "-jaj", there is no evidence that
>>they should be be reversed. In fact, he *does* say so (HolQeD 2:4, p.7: "I
[rest of quote deleted]
>>~mark
>Somewhat ironically, I'm going to come out on 'avrIn's side here.
>Sort of. With a whopping big caveat.
>Everything mark says here is absolutely true, and there is normally
>no special rule for -jaj. However: One could claim that a this
>particular saying about revenge indeed *is* an old, fossilized
>utterance. Someone help me out here: Isn't the saying (in the
>English version) quoted in one of the strek movies (by Spock, maybe?)
>and referred to as an "old Klingon proverb"? Well, if it's old,
>then one could argue it might use the archaic -jaj rule, and I could
>see how someone might want to do that, just for fun. However:
Well, we know that the saying of how revenge is a dish best served cold is
an old proverb, *but* presumably the formulation of it in the old proverb
is the one given in the canon (bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay').
'avrIn's restatement of if expresses old sentiments in new clothes, and
thus can't really be considered an old fossilized saying (unless you're
taking the view that 'avrIn's forn is the original, old one, and Okrand
gave us a modern recasting, which somehow seems less likely). I mean, it's
true that it's an old Earth saying that "pagh DaSuDchugh, vaj pagh DaSuq",
but that does mean the old saying in English goes "If you don't risk
anything, you won't get anything back." The real "old form" is "nothing
ventured, nothing gained."
>Of course, on the other hand, if we're claiming it's old and
>fossilized, why not use the canonical version (given in TKD). I
>admit that I never liked the translation much, and I can see someone
>wanting to try it another way, but I suppose it's rather hard to
>simultaneously offer a fresh approach AND claim it's an ancient
>classic. {{:-)
That's about my view...
~mark
