[93217] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] translation of a political observation from a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID jonpIn)
Thu May 10 14:47:45 2012
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120510104533.051682c8@flyingstart.ca>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 20:47:29 +0200
From: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
De'vID:
>> Kahlesste kaase![1] pIpDu' Hutlh Humanpu' 'e' vISov. 'ach tIqDu'
>> Hutlhlaw' je. qo'wIjDaq bang vIwIvDI' wIvwIj DaqaDchugh, jIH'e'
>> choqaDbej. =A0'ej chejlIj SopmeH targhoywIj, chejlIj vIlelqangqu'
>> jIH'e'.
Qov:
> I understand that targhoy is an easier construction than something combin=
ing
> Saj and targh, but it's kind of sweet for the rest of the sentence.
> {targhwIj} alone probably sufficiently conveys the idea of pet.
I know it's kind of sweet for the rest of the sentence, from a human
perspective. The idea that a Klingon would not see a conflict between
the sweetness of {targhoy} and what the {targhoy} was doing amused me,
but perhaps draws too much attention to the pet-ness of the {targh}.
I'll drop it and use {targhwIj} alone since, as you say, it's obvious
from context.
>> be' jIHmo' tlhIngan nugh patlhwIj vIbajtaHmeH jISuvqu'taH. =A0'ach
>> may'meywIj Suv loD 'e' vIchaw'Qo'. =A0verengan bochmoHwI' vIrurbe'. =A0w=
o'
>> ngay' lughurmoHmeH cha' maqoch, tlhejchuqtaHvIS Suvchugh,
>> muSHa'chuqbe''a'? =A0ngoQvamvaD tlhejchuqtaHvIS Suvchugh cha' chaj,
>> muSHa'chuqbe''a'? =A0vabDot ghItlh tetlh tIQDaq qeylIS muSHa' molor 'e'
>> tu'lu'.
Qov:
> You may have to ask your source for more information on what they mean by
> love. English uses that one word to mean a lot of different things. In
> English you love your country and you love your life partner, and the pie=
ce
> is using that fact as a bit of a rhetorical lever. {muSHa'} is understood,
> but not always accepted as "love" by Klingonists. The English doesn't make
> it clear whether "is that not love" refers to the love of the combatants =
for
> their country or for one another, while your Klingon has taken that and m=
ade
> it explicit. If you're going to do that, anyway, consider a construction
> with less controversial words like parmaq/parmaqqay.
I recognise that "love" is a word that does not necessary map onto one
word in another language than English, and indeed, it does not do so
in Klingon. I do think that the English passage implies that the love
is felt by the combatants for each other. But I avoided parmaq
because of its romantic connotations. Molor perhaps "loved" Kahless
(in the sense of seeing in him a worthy adversary who, despite being
an enemy, deserves respect and admiration), but (probably) not in the
sense of {parmaq}. As you noted, the rhetorical device used in the
English is that the word "love" has both romantic and non-romantic
meanings, and I wanted to try to use terminology which is similarly
romance-neutral in Klingon.
>> [1] {qeylIS ghop} - no' Hol mu'qaD 'oH.
Qov:
> I think it's actually Klingonaase, a separate language. You might offer y=
our
> source a translation so it's all in the same language, but I certainly do=
n't
> object to the odd bit of Klingonaase. Kai John M. Ford!
The task is to "recover" the "original" Klingon of the given passage,
as it were. I am not allowed to change the English version of the
passage, and yet I have to maintain the conceit that the Klingon is
actually the original. I have to explain the phrase somehow. It
would be odd if an Okrandian Klingon phrase became a Fordian one in
the process of translation from Klingon to English.
-- =
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
