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

Sun Apr 6 20:11:40 PDT 2014

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/cd46aae3/attachment-0003.html>