[99303] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Star Trek: Axanar - Help needed with Klingon
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Kidder-Mostrom)
Sat Aug 2 15:58:00 2014
In-Reply-To: <C76E8F6E-D370-4EBA-9EBB-31A90C4CFAE2@alcaco.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 14:57:46 -0500
From: Christopher Kidder-Mostrom <cokidder@cbtheatre.org>
To: Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Cc: KLI <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============7490437476628319231==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33bb06b913204ffaaeb04
--001a11c33bb06b913204ffaaeb04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Also, Tony Todd does say in his line that it approximately means, rather
than literally means.
On Aug 2, 2014 3:44 PM, "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2014, at 11:57 AM, "Peter Walker" <peter@startrekphase2.de>
> wrote:
>
> > The terms are translated into English after they are spoken, but we would
> > like to write the terms in the original Klingon.
>
> It would be a lot easier and a lot more effective if the terms had been
> "in the original Klingon" to begin with. There's a word, {HIgh} "fight
> dirty", that fits the idea well but doesn't lend itself to the presented
> translation. Indeed, *nothing* in Klingon grammar is a straightforward
> "least X", even when X is a noun.
>
> There's a special kind of irritation evoked by a Star Trek work claiming
> that some Klingon term is "literally translated as" some English phrase
> when the English presents a phrasing which simply does not happen in
> Klingon. It would work so much better to call it "roughly" or
> "colloquially" translated.
>
> I cannot improve on Felix's suggestions.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
--001a11c33bb06b913204ffaaeb04
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">Also, Tony Todd does say in his line that it approximately m=
eans, rather than literally means.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Aug 2, 2014 3:44 PM, "ghunchu'wI'=
;" <<a href=3D"mailto:qunchuy@alcaco.net">qunchuy@alcaco.net</a>>=
; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Aug 2, 2014, at 11:57 AM, "Peter Walker" <<a href=3D"mailto=
:peter@startrekphase2.de">peter@startrekphase2.de</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> The terms are translated into English after they are spoken, but we wo=
uld<br>
> like to write the terms in the original Klingon.<br>
<br>
It would be a lot easier and a lot more effective if the terms had been &qu=
ot;in the original Klingon" to begin with. There's a word, {HIgh} =
"fight dirty", that fits the idea well but doesn't lend itsel=
f to the presented translation. Indeed, *nothing* in Klingon grammar is a s=
traightforward "least X", even when X is a noun.<br>
<br>
There's a special kind of irritation evoked by a Star Trek work claimin=
g that some Klingon term is "literally translated as" some Englis=
h phrase when the English presents a phrasing which simply does not happen =
in Klingon. It would work so much better to call it "roughly" or =
"colloquially" translated.<br>
<br>
I cannot improve on Felix's suggestions.<br>
<br>
-- ghunchu'wI'<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--001a11c33bb06b913204ffaaeb04--
--===============7490437476628319231==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============7490437476628319231==--
