[tlhIngan Hol] {ghIq} {ngugh} and time adverbs with time stamps

[SuStel]

On 10/30/2021 3:59 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> ghunchu'wI':
> > the predominant style of the best-written Klingon
>
> And who will be the judge of what is "the predominant style of the 
> best-written Klingon"?
>
> The only person whose opinion would matter is 'oqranD. If 'oqranD had 
> translated long complex texts, then I would be glad to discuss the 
> style he used, and the choices he'd make. (And I say "discuss"; not 
> "accept"). But as far as I know, 'oqranD hasn't given us any 
> translation of a long complex text.

Sure he has. /paq'batlh/ is primarily his own translation, with some 
editorial assistance from some KLI members.

However, it is specifically made to be a poetic translation of poetry 
which is itself supposed to be a translation from an original Old 
Klingon text. What that might say about Klingon writing styles, I 
wouldn't venture to guess.


> 'oqranD has only advised "break up complex sentences", and people keep 
> repeating his words, as if some kind of gum which they keep chewing 
> over and over. It's like someone saying "just create a ship which can 
> time travel".

Well, no. When I tell people to break up complex sentences, it's because 
Klingon has a natural level of complexity that long years of experience 
reading and speaking the language give me a good feeling for. English 
sentences are more complex than Klingon sentences, and many concepts put 
into individual English sentences simply don't work in Klingon — the 
grammar just doesn't do everything English grammar does. On the other 
hand, Klingon appears to be far more forgiving of sentence fragments and 
relies much more heavily on understanding context than English is and does.

And advising less-complex sentences is not the same as advising the 
shortest possible sentences. People who string together many quality 
verbs as back-to-back complete sentences are doing a disservice to what 
Klingon can do.

It's an art, not a science. Different settings will necessitate 
different levels of complexity and formality. Different speakers or 
writers will express themselves differently. There's no right way. But 
there is what Klingon seems naturally best at, and the further you 
deviate from that, the more skill you need to keep your Klingon 
aesthetically pleasing and to keep your Klingon from being either 
plodding (too simple) or impenetrable (too complex).


> Now, as far as choices made by any other individuals, as well as their 
> personal writing styles are concerned.. They aren't of any value, 
> carry no authority, nor can they be brought up as an example to be 
> followed.

This is one time I'm going to disagree with this. There is no manual 
written by a Klingon on good style, but there doesn't need to be. As an 
experienced Klingonist, I can judge whether something is well-written in 
Klingon. Not according to Klingon aesthetics, but according to mine. 
Either it will keep my attention or it won't.

When I recommend breaking up a sentence, it's for one of two reasons. 
Either the grammar of the original simply can't fit into the grammar of 
Klingon, or what you've written is grammatically valid but still not a 
good idea. "The dog the cat the mouse feared loathed barked" is a 
grammatically valid sentence but a really poor way to express yourself. 
Similarly, there are valid constructions possible in Klingon that just 
aren't a good idea.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211031/1a42c733/attachment-0003.htm>