[Tlhingan-hol] Canon and feelings for translating be-verbs with"there"

[Elizabeth Lawrence]

I would certainly prefer to see the Klingon sentences you used as examples
over the same sentences with a tu'lu' on the end.  I would want tu'lu' if
there were no stative verbs, if the emphasis was on the finding (though in
that case, -lu' might well not fit), or with stative verbs where the
meaning with and without "there is" is not equivalent.

For example, for *law' Iw'* "Blood is abundant." and "There is a lot of
blood." convey the same meaning in different styles.  For *Doq paq* "The
book is red." and "There is a red book." don't have the same semantic
content.I would not translate *Doq paq* as "There is a red book."

As for what translation I would use in your examples, I wouldn't have a
problem with someone else's use of either, but which I would use would
depend on my intent.  If I was trying to translate colloquial Klingon to
colloquial English, I might well prefer the "There is" translations, but if
I was trying to convey in English the feel of colloquial Klingon, I would
choose the more direct translations.

For your beginner course, you might want to include a couple of examples
with both the very direct and more colloquial translations, to help give
students a sense of the kinds of rephrasing they will have to do when they
are translating their English ideas into Klingon sentences.

be''etlh


On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:

> > law' 'Iw. - Blood is abundant. = There's a lot of blood.
> > puS Soj. - Food is sparse. = There's not much food.
>
> > does anyone feel that 'Iw law' tu'lu' is necessary in order to use
> > that translation. Does anyone prefer 'Iw law' tu'lu'
> > for that thought and think puS Soj is stilted?
>
> Are we looking for a /translation/, or a secret decoder ring phrase
> substitution?
>
> Qov> (My stupid mail program doesn't handle attributed text properly).
> Qov> We're looking for a translation that, when presented in a dialogue for
> beginners, will not make any of the experts complain that it is poor form,
> or teaching the beginners incorrectly.
>
> > To me, [law' 'Iw] is about the blood being abundant.
> > ['Iw law' tu'lu'] is about the fact that "one discovers" much blood.
>
> Qov> We know that tu'lu' is an idiom indicating the presence of something,
> akin to Spanish hay, French il y a, and Russian есть. We have much canon to
> support "there is" being a natural translation.
>
> What is the focus in the story being told?
>
> Qov> The parents are complaining about the mess the kids are making by
> fighting with knives in the house, but the real focus is use of the stative
> verb law'. I want to ensure that when I write <law' 'Iw> that experienced
> speakers will see a well-formed Klingon sentence and feel that "there is a
> lot of blood" is an acceptable translation.
>
> > It's the same idea:  "verb X" which should strictly be translated as
> > "X verbs" becomes "There is X verbing."
>
> This could fall into how we often joke about the wordiness of English.
>
> Qov> Yes. But I want to present natural-sounding translations.
>
> > I don't expect anyone is going to object to such translations, but I
> > have been twitching for fifteen years every time I see ghopHomDu'
> > translated as "small hands" in the postal course, so I want to make
> > sure this doesn't irk anyone.
>
> I cringe every time someone uses -'a' and -Hom to denote simply "big" and
> "small".
> Example, a crown is not necessarily big.
>
> Qov> That was my point. The existing postal course, created about 15 years
> ago, not by me, used the suffixes this way. I aim to avoid producing
> anything that makes others cringe or twitch.
>
> I can understand how using "there's..." when teaching beginners could cause
> some confusion.  When I study a new language, I want to see a choppy
> word-for-word substitution so I can learn what each part of the sentence
> actually means.  How do you learn vocabulary from actual usage if everyone
> keeps throwing in extra words.
> But... I have also seen many ignorant/arrogant people that have never
> studied a language make fun of Klingon because the translations were given
> as choppy word-for-word instead of a more colloquial form.
>
> Qov> The intended audience is the serious student of Klingon, so I am not
> overly worried about choppiness. I will be sure to make that point. Thank
> you.
>
>
> -- DloraH
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140406/d6393d31/attachment.html>