[2405] in tlhIngan-Hol
KBTP: Mark
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Dec 21 22:46:47 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: "trI'Qal" <DOBELBOWER@opus.mco.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 22:41:05 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com"
Well, I finally got a chance to read through the translation of Mark that
was sent to the list, and I have to say (with no disrespect for the translator
intended; these are just my thoughts) that I was disappointed.
First of all, there were several words I had neither seen before, nor
could I find in my dictionary (to which I have taken the pains of adding the
new words which have been posted here), and which were not acceptible
compounds, to my knowledge. Among these were QumyaSwI', pelu' and vamwI'pu'.
If these are just words that I somehow failed to enter in my KD, someone
please tell me so, and re-send the list which included them?
Second, I found that the author's use of commas was a bit proliferous. It
was not until half-way through the translation that I realized that he was
using them to seperate complex (ie, nouns with a relative clause with an
object attached) items in noun-noun "ands" from the other items being "and"ed
(if that makes any sense). This caused me considerably more confusion than it
was worth, especially since his use of -'e' and the grammatical structure in
almost all (or perhaps even all) of those cases made the constructions very
clear as to what was part of the complex construction, and what was another
item listed in the "and".
Finally, and perhaps the most disappointing, was the huge areas of text
that were confusing and seemingly disjointed. Now, this may be the way it was
in the original Hebrew (or wahtever language the blasted thing was written in;
I wouldn't know. I don't study such things), and it has been a long time
since I read it, but I feel that if I have to go back to another translation
when I convert what was written to English, then there is a problem. I
haven't even looked at my King James Bible to compare, and I really don't want
to have to. I should (or so I feel) be able to understand what was written,
just by traslation; otherwise, it is just jibberish, qar'a'?
Rather than go into detail over what I was confused with here, if the
author wishes to request it of me via private email, he may do so at
bdd@po.CWRU.edu or dobelbower@opus.iarc.mco.edu. Or you can post a request
here and I will respond. No difference to me. {{:)
--HoD trI'Qal
tlhwD lIy So'
