Re: [tlhIngan Hol] expressing baby animals (and words for dog)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 21:01:53 +0100 From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> Cc: "tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] expressing baby animals (and words for dog)
I'm sure both that a {Qa'Hom} is a different species than a {Qa'} and that the word is indeed {Qa'} + {-Hom}. So I don't think {-Hom} makes the name of the young of animals.
This is a good point! I hadn't even thought of *Qa'* and *Qa'Hom*. The Qa'Hom is more mouse-like, and the Qa' more rat-like, right? (Because rats are bigger than mice.)
Where did you see/hear/read that this was "the standard way" to do so?
It was some post several months ago on this list that mentioned it in passing. Unfortunately, I can no longer find the post. I tried googling *vIghro'Hom" and "DIraqHom" and other similar words, but those searches didn't pull up anything relevant either.
Then we have KLV Klingon/Standard Vocabulary - KLV <https://sites.google.com/a/klingonword.org/klv/klv-klingon-standard-vocabulary>, which uses *SarghHom* for "donkey".
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?
On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 at 05:56, James Landau <savegraduation@yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 21:01:53 +0100 From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> Cc: "tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@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
On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 at 05:56, James Landau <savegraduation@yahoo.com It isn't a Bing-style translation, is it?
Am 04.12.2021 um 10:44 schrieb De'vID:
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.)
The page about the Klingon Bible on the Wiki has a short paragraph on that: http://klingon.wiki/En/ReligiousTextTranslationProject#Mock_translation I'm not sure this deserves its own page, but after this recent, maybe it does? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com
participants (3)
-
De'vID -
James Landau -
Lieven L. Litaer