[Tlhingan-hol] beyn Dartlh

[qunnoQ HoD]

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

this is perfect ! indeed this would be a perfect way to convey the
desired meaning to a klingon mind. thanks !

qun HoD

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:07 PM, André Müller <esperantist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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