[tlhIngan Hol] Claudian quote

Sun Jul 28 07:30:13 PDT 2024

> Also, the "you" in English isn't meant to be

> addressing someone, but can mean "one" on general.

Indeed, although Klingons don't appear averse to providing quotes and proverbs in the second person, judging by examples in TKW:

{DabuQlu'DI' yISuv!}

{Dubotchugh yIpummoH!}

{bIlujlaHbe'chugh bIQaplaHbe'.}

{bItuHlaHbe'chugh bIquvlaHbe'.}

A possible interpretation is that these quotes are to be taken as addressing the reader/listener, rather than referring to some generic "you" (although the "you" may be generic insofar as the reader/listener is unknown to the writer/speaker).

For this quote, I think both addressing the recipient and making a general statement makes sense. So, unless some further context or constraint is provided (i.e. this is in a book of general observations of history, or this is from a self-help book, or this should be translated as directly from the English/Latin as possible), I'll just go with whatever makes the Klingon sound best to me.

Trying to find the original context, it seems this is a quote from the poet Quintus Ennius, apparently commenting on how Roman soldiers continued to resist even after Rome had formally surrendered in the Second Punic War. Based on Google Translate's rendition of the text on Italian Wikipedia, it may have been a sarcastic comment on the Carthaginian general's failure to understand that the Romans were not yet truly defeated.

The Latin quote, according to Italian Wikipedia, is:

Qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur

("Who wins is not the victor lest the defeated admits it")

I don't really understand the full context, but given that it comes from a historical account and the original quote is in the third person, a third-person or generic subject does indeed seem more faithful to the original.

Some possible third-person/generic translations, in descending order of faithfulness to the original phrasing:

{Qapta'be' charghwI' Qapta' 'e' lajbe'chugh jagh jeyta'bogh.}

{jeylu'ta' 'e' lajQo'chugh jagh jeylu'ta'be'.}

{jeghpu'be'chugh jagh jeylu'ta'be'.}

{(yay/charghwI') ('ol/tob) jeghpu'wI' laj.}

{lo'laHbe' yay lajbe'chugh lujpu'wI'qoq.}

> {yay lajbe'chugh jagh vaj yay chavbe'lu'.}

[DISCLAIMER: I wrote this part of the response before looking up the original quote. After looking it up, I have become more favorable to the choice of the word {laj}; it was the Roman generals' lack of *acceptance* of defeat that nullified said defeat. So, the thoughts below are largely irrelevant to the current translation, but I'll keep them in, as I still think they're relevant to translation in general.]

I think {laj} is a good choice, but I think it may potentially go a step further than {chID} (which may or may not be what one wants).

In English, the word "accept" can be used used to mean that one acknowledges a fact, but it can also be used to mean that one deems that fact acceptable; one may approve of the state of affairs, or perhaps settle for it only begrudgingly.

For example: Do I accept that the rich and mighty can exploit those less fortunate?
Well, I accept the fact that it *is* the status quo, but I do not find the status quo *acceptable*, and I don't think we should settle for it.

I don't think we had many example sentences with {laj} prior to paq'batlh; the ones we had dealt mainly with receiving tangible objects (like to'baj legs, or the record of battle). With paq'batlh, we do have some examples which I think are consistent with a "finding acceptable" interpretation:

-------------------------

== Original edition ==

ghu’ Dachupbogh vIlaj
‘ach wa’ vay’ vIpoQ
‘e’ Dachaw’chugh neH

yIntaHwI’pu’ vImIlHa’moH jIH
Heghpu’wI’pu’
DamIlHa’moH SoH

SoHvaD quvwI’ qem Hegh 'e' wIvDI’ Hegh
pop Hevchugh quvwI'
'ej 'e' DaqaSmoHchugh jIlaj

== 2nd edition ==

ghu' Dachupbogh vIlaj
'ach wa' ghu' vIchupbogh
Dalajchugh neH

yIntaHwI'pu' vImIlHa'moH jIH
Heghpu'wI'pu'
DamIlHa'moH SoH

SoHvaD quvwI' qem Hegh 'e' wIvDI' Hegh
pop Hevchugh quvwI'
'ej 'e' DaqaSmoHchugh jIlaj

-------------------------

As far as the quote in question is concerned, I think that this makes {laj} a bit stronger than {chID}:
Not merely acknowledging the victor's mastery, but resigning themselves to it.
[Which, as mentioned in the disclaimer above, does indeed seem appropriate here.]

//loghaD

________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 8:59:25 AM
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Cc: Lieven L. Litaer
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Claudian quote

Am 27.07.2024 um 04:00 schrieb SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol:
> *bIcharghpu'be' bIghatlh 'e' chIDbe'chugh jagh Dajeypu'bogh.
> */You have not conquered if the enemy you have defeated does not admit
> that you dominate./
>
> As with most translations of pithy English phrases, the Klingon isn't as
> pithy, and I don't see a way to shorten this and keep all the parts.

Maybe it's not necessary to keep all the parts. Klingon can be really
short very often. Also, the "you" in English isn't meant to be
addressing someone, but can mean "one" on general.

My suggestion is this:

{yay lajbe'chugh jagh vaj yay chavbe'lu'.}

--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
https://tlhInganHol.com
https://klingon.wiki/En/TheKlingonWay
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20240728/deda94c2/attachment.htm>