[Tlhingan-hol] beyn Dartlh

[André Müller]

2015-11-30 17:25 GMT+01:00 qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com>:

> > Would {Sith ghaH Darth Bane'e'} be sufficient for the meaning?
>
> This is a good question.. If I read the {Sith ghaH Darth Bane'e'}, I
> would translate it in my mind as <<Darth Bane is (a) Sith>>. Is there
> a way this could mean <<Among the Sith there was Darth Bane>> too ?
> This may be a pretty a stupid question,but I'm asking because as a
> beginner I have to assume that there may be alternate translations to
> a given sentence,than just the one that I think is the obvious one..
>

Even if the answer is "No.", it's a really good assumption. Some languages
distinguish between 'X is the same as Y' and X is a member of the group of
Y' in intriguing ways. Thai has a copula [pen] which just means 'to be',
and another one, [kʰɯː] which means 'to be identical to', so when you use
the 2nd copula, you're really equating X and Y, they are the exact same
thing. You could say "Clark Kent kʰɯː Superman.", because they're the same
person, but you'd say "Superman pen kʰon Krypton." (Superman is a
Kryptonian). We don't have that in Klingon. And if the context is clear and
it is well known what Sith are, then {Y ghaH X'e'.} is sufficient.

If you speak about something that might not be commonly known to the
audience, it might be useful to specify that Darth Bane is but one of the
Siths. Another option is:

{*Sith* tuqnIgh ghaH *Darth Bane*'e'.}
'Darth Bane is a member of the house of Sith.'

It's not strictly a house, though. But the idea might still get across.


> > {tlhIngan ghaH wa' vub'e'.}
>
> Same comment here. If I didn't see your translation,I would take this
> as <<One hostage is Klingon>>. But what about the other hostages ? Are
> they Klingon too ?
> The objective isn't to say "One Sith (lord) is Darth Bane" ; It is to
> say that "among the Sith (group) exists Darth Bane".  What if I wanted
> to say <<among the Klingon Chancellors was Gowron>> ? With the
> <<Klingon Chancellors>> having an abstract meaning,for example <<the
> Klingon Chancellors (of all Klingon history)>> ?
>

Yes, 'One hostage is Klingon' is also a perfectly suitable translation. I
think this is from Star Trek 5, where Sybok holds three hostages on Nimbus
III, one is a Klingon, one is a Romulan, and the third one is Terran.

We have to live with the fact that Klingon sentences can be ambiguous or
vague. And they often are. But so are English sentences. If we want to be
exact and avoid all missunderstandings, we'll have to define what the Sith
are, anyway, a few sentences earlier, and then say that DB is a Sith. I
think then it will be understood.

- André
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151130/da4c7e99/attachment.html>