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

Sun Apr 6 22:14:12 PDT 2014

Thanks, all,

No one has said anything I disagree with here.  I want the course to show examples of indisputably good Klingon, and I want to be able to back it up with canon. As I was going over what I had written, I thought perhaps that there were Klingonists who would not consider <law’ ‘Iw> or <puS Soj> to be well-formed sentences, because of the awkward direct translations. I am comfortable with them, but was unable to find a similar sentence in canon. 

I think, lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv, that you’re the one who taught me to favour sentences of this type. :-)  I will soon post a link to a sample formatted lesson, and make available the content for the first fifteen or so, for your nitpicking pleasure. It’s a painful step, and I may call closure on the debate before all the horses have been beaten completely flat, but a beginner’s course should present Klingon that any Klingonist will accept.

- Qov

From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh [mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 6, 2014 20:12
To: tlhInganHol discussion group
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Canon and feelings for translating be-verbs with"there"

I agree here, though there’s reasoning not stated yet.

Okrand didn’t want Klingon to have the verb “to be”, so he created mechanisms to work around it. The adjectival verbs were one tool. The use of pronouns as verbs was a second tool. {tu’lu’} is a third tool. So, using adjectival tools with {tu’lu’} is doubling up your “to be” replacements. It’s not a job that needs to be done twice.

You use {tu’lu’} for things like “There are Klingons speaking in the room.” {pa’Daq jatlh tlhIngan tu’lu’}. “One finds Klingons speaking in the room.” Typical English translation uses “are”. Klingon uses “discover”. Same meaning root, but totally different word choice, like a different language, instead of like an encoding of the original language.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh

Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably

On Apr 6, 2014, at 10:10 PM, Elizabeth Lawrence <elizabeth.lawrence08 at gmail.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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/20140406/1a012d56/attachment.html>