[tlhIngan Hol] expressing baby animals (and words for dog)

[De'vID]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 at 05:56, James Landau <savegraduation at yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 21:01:53 +0100
> >From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com>
> >Cc: "tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org" <tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org>
> >Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] expressing baby animals (and words for
>     dog)
>
> >I don't think the KLV "translation" project is viewed highly by most
> >skilled Klingon speakers (to put it politely).
>
>
> Thanks for letting me know!
>
>
> It isn't a Bing-style translation, is it?
>

It's a word-for-word substitution using a word list without regard for
meaning or grammar. (The project itself uses the word "relexification" to
describe this process.)

For example, in the link you posted, it listed {'elta'} as the substitution
for "entered". (Why {-ta'} and not {-pu'}? Some verbs had substitutions
with {-pu'} and others had {-ta'}, for reasons never explained.) The KLV
would use {'elta'} for entering a house, synagogue, or ship, which is okay,
but also for "ye are entered into their labours" and things like that.

It's debatable which is worse between this and Bing.

p.s. Does the word "donkey" even appear in the KJV? I think not. I think in
the English of King James' time, the word for what we now call a "donkey"
was "ass", and that's the word actually used in the KJV. So the KLV isn't
even a word-for-word substitution, it's a bowdlerised word-for-word
substitution (presumably to avoid the association of "ass" with {Sa'Hut}).
(Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia both say that the earliest attestation of
"donkey" to refer to the animal is ca. 1785, so 174 years after the 1611
publication of the KJV.)

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211204/be6f2f61/attachment-0031.htm>