<html><head></head><body><div class="yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div dir="ltr"><div></div>>From: "De'vID" <<a href="mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>><br></div><div id="ydpb8563aayahoo_quoted_8985117334" class="ydpb8563aayahoo_quoted"><div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;"><div><div dir="ltr">>To: tlhIngan-Hol <<a href="mailto:tlhingan-hol@kli.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">>Cc: "<a href="mailto:tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">>Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] expressing baby animals (and words for<br></div><div dir="ltr"> dog)<br></div></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div>>> It isn't a Bing-style translation, is it?<br><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">>It's a word-for-word substitution using a word list without regard for<br></div><div dir="ltr">>meaning or grammar. (The project itself uses the word "relexification" to<br></div><div dir="ltr">>describe this process.)<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">>For example, in the link you posted, it listed {'elta'} as the substitution<br></div><div dir="ltr">>for "entered". (Why {-ta'} and not {-pu'}? Some verbs had substitutions<br></div><div dir="ltr">>with {-pu'} and others had {-ta'}, for reasons never explained.) The KLV<br></div><div dir="ltr">>would use {'elta'} for entering a house, synagogue, or ship, which is okay,<br></div><div dir="ltr">>but also for "ye are entered into their labours" and things like that.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">So the man who spearheads the KLV knows it's not even correct Klingon grammar? Then why bother if it's going to be word salad? What a waste of time.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Having a conlang that is a "relex" or "cipher" is considered something to avoid in the conlanging community. Someone by the name of Marduk came to the CBB (a conlanging forum) earlier this year and spent a day sharing his <span>sixteen</span> languages, all of which had over 56,000 words of lexicon, with us. You could type English text in and it would output the translation in any of the sixteen conlangs you wished, and even print it in one of his constructed scripts. Well, it turned out that Marduk had designed the phonology and the con-scripts for his languages, but all of his lexica were computer-generated English ciphers, mapping up one-on-one with an English word-form regardless of meaning or part of speech, and the words were in the exact same order as their English equivalents! Sort of takes the fun out of making a conlang.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr">>It's debatable which is worse between this and Bing.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I'd say this is worse than Bing, since at least Bing was fed Klingon morphological and syntactic rules (from what I understand).</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr">>p.s. Does the word "donkey" even appear in the KJV? I think not. I think in<br></div><div dir="ltr">>the English of King James' time, the word for what we now call a "donkey"<br></div><div dir="ltr">>was "ass", and that's the word actually used in the KJV. So the KLV isn't<br></div><div dir="ltr">>even a word-for-word substitution, it's a bowdlerised word-for-word<br></div><div dir="ltr">>substitution (presumably to avoid the association of "ass" with {Sa'Hut}).<br></div><div dir="ltr">>(Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia both say that the earliest attestation of<br></div><div dir="ltr">>"donkey" to refer to the animal is ca. 1785, so 174 years after the 1611<br></div><div dir="ltr">>publication of the KJV.)<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I was wondering about this too. I remember when my father went to someone's bar mitzvah and came back with some Judaica that had the Ten Commandments printed in Hebrew and translated into Biblical English. The Hebrews were told not to covet their neighbor's wife, nor their neighbor's ass nor ox nor maidservant nor manservant nor anything else that was their neighbor's. I was about 9 or 10 at the same, and laughed because "ass", which meant *Sa'Hut* as well as donkey, was in the Bible, even though I knew what they meant. I've seen Biblical quotes with "ass" in them many times since then, and remember reading about the word "donkey" being coined as a substitute for "ass" around the same time people turned "cock" into "rooster" and "apricock" into "apricot". So I was wondering what version of the Bible was being used, if it has "donkey".<br></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>