>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 21:01:53 +0100
>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