[1438] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: relative clauses (more)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Aug 24 00:01:22 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: trI'Qal <DOBELBOWER%OPUS@cutter.mco.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: 23 Aug 1993 22:49:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: CUTTER::IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
jatlhpu' "Jacques Guy":
>Now for a last piece of (perhaps heretical) thought: ambiguity does
>not really bother me. [..omitted for brevity..]
Me, either. Personally, I find your thoughts not only not heretical, but I
agree with them. I actually see nothing ambiguous with *most* translations
involving relative clauses without using "-'e'".
>More heretical tought to conclude (am I turning into a thloqo'?):
>why not accept that Klingon is not like English, and do away with
>'e' for disambiguation purposes? All the more so that 'e', taking
>the same slot as vo', mo', etc. we're still in the poo when we
>want to translate "the room from which..., the reason for which...,
>etc."
Absolutely!
>(Don't pay too much attention to those ramblings. They're only
>my morning brain-stretching exercises)
Sorry, I pay at least a cursory attention to anything that comes through this
list. I find all of this (even if I never say anything!) quite intriging... so
your rambles just became my latest food for thought.
Hol'e' is truly a beautiful language, when you stop thinking in terran terms.
for example, there was much debate over the translation of "to be or not to
be." A good suggestion was: yIn pagh Hegh. Personally, I find the most
elegant tranlation to be: yIn pagh yInHa'.
NOTE: I confess to being highly opinionated. Normally, I try to keep my
postings a bit less so, but in this case... well, you can always delete my
post. :) Please bear in mind that this is JIMN-S-HO. {{;)
--HoD trI'Qal, tlhwD "lIy So'"
