[138] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: random (but hopefully interesting) question
dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 19:17:12 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: mark@cc.gatech.edu (Mark J. Reed)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 92 10:23:00 EST
In-Reply-To: <9201251834.AA21691@binkley.MIT.EDU>; from "dcctdw@Athena.MIT.EDU"
\I think the whole spiel associated with "taH pagh taHbe'" should be
\avoided... (this probably borders on flaming; nothing personal to C.
\Maise, but rather to Nick Meyer) Okrand invented the language without "to
\be", and we should keep it that way, rather than accepting the kludge used
\in ST6. imho, "to be or not to be" would be better translated as "to
\survive or not to survive"...
But that's how it was translated. Nowhere is it suggested that "taH"
should be synonymous with "be". I certainly don't think it is. I do, however,
think that it works well as a translation of "survive", in lieu of an explicit
exact equivalent. So I don't see its usage in ST6 as a "kludge". In the case
under discussion ("There can be only one."), survival is exactly the issue.
Therefore, I think that a translation using "taH" is appropriate.
--
Mark J. Reed College of Computing Technical Support
<mark@cc.gatech.edu> Georgia Institute of Technology
