Recently, charghwI' wrote and I replied: charghwI':
don’t expect everyone who reads what you’ve written or hears what you’ve said to be keenly aware of whatever fine shade of meaning that you intended to convey by choosing one or the other. jIH: This is a wonderful comment indeed. I've noticed, that as the years go by, and the more I use klingon, I tend to *feel* certain words in a certain way, without though this "perception" of mine actually being based on solid Ca'Non.
As it seems, I just noticed one such case.. Yesterday, I wondered how to express "darkness is the real light". So instinctively I wrote: {tamghayna' 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'} I used {-na'} because in my mind, I had attributed to it the meaning "to be real, true" as opposed to "counterfeit". In other words, somewhere along the way, I started perceiving the {-na'} to be conveying a meaning opposite to the verb {ngeb}. Luckily though, yesterday, I had the idea of checking with the tkd. So, lets remember, the way {-na'} is defined: tkd:
{-na'} <definite> This is the counterpart of {-Hey.} It indicates that there is no doubt in the speaker's mind as to the accuracy of his or her choice of words. Once the Klingon officer referred to above is sure that the object the scanner has found is a vessel, he might report the presence of {Dujna'} <a definite vessel, undoubtedly a vessel.>
So, after reading the relevant tkd part, I understood that by saying {tamghayna' 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'}, I'm not actually saying "perfect darkness is the true light" (true as opposed to fake/counterfeit). By saying {tamghayna' 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'}, i'm actually saying "perfect darkness is the definite light" as in "perfect darkness is surely the light". Perhaps there doesn't seem to be any significant difference between these two translations.. Or is there ? Lets read: "perfect darkness is the true light" "perfect darkness is the definite light" But if I say "perfect darkness is the definite true light", then perhaps a difference starts to show. Saying "perfect darkness is the definite true light", means that perhaps there are many kinds of light which can be considered "true", but only one is actually the true one, while the rest only appear as being true. So, I think, that by saying {tamghayna'} i'm not expressing the concept of "true light" (as opposed to counterfeit). I'm rather expressing that "it is definitely a light", but a light which may be of the counterfeit variety. So, to say that "perfect darkness is the true light" (as opposed to the counterfeit kinds of light), perhaps I should write: {tamghay teH 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'} Anyways, in no way am I sure that my analysis is correct, so any thoughts and comments are mostly welcomed. ~ hjkhkjkhhjk
AFAIK Okrand has only used {teH} "be true" twice: qeylIS tIghmey'e' DaH tIQoy teH tIghmey 'ej bIH bolIjlaHbe' Hear now, […] The ways of Kahless, For they are true And unforgettable. PB Note he uses both {teH} and {-na'} in his translation of Shakespeare's Sonnet 116: nge'wI' rurQo' bangna'; SIHlu'be'chu'. parmaq choH pagh teHqu', choH tu'DI' lajDaj. FYI here's the entire text of the {bang bom}: yab matlh muvchuqghach Sorgh vay' 'e' vIbotjaj. nge'wI' rurQo' bangna'; SIHlu'be'chu'. parmaq choH pagh teHqu', choH tu'DI' lajDaj. ghobe'! qarbejbogh DoDvam qontaH 'u' jevqu'taHvIS muD ral, bejlI' parmaq. Qombe'! nISbe' jevwI', 'ej not ruS baq. Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, or bends with the remover to remove: Oh, no! It is an ever-fixed mark. That looks on tempests and is never shaken. (Sonnet 116) -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -----Original Message----- From: Hugh Son puqloD
On Aug 14, 2019, at 05:26, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
{tamghay teH 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'}
As I understand it, {teH} is “true” in the sense of truthfulness, not “true” in the sense of genuineness. _______________________________________________
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 12:26, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I used {-na'} because in my mind, I had attributed to it the meaning "to be real, true" as opposed to "counterfeit". In other words, somewhere along the way, I started perceiving the {-na'} to be conveying a meaning opposite to the verb {ngeb}.
Luckily though, yesterday, I had the idea of checking with the tkd. So, lets remember, the way {-na'} is defined:
tkd:
{-na'} <definite> This is the counterpart of {-Hey.} It indicates that there is no doubt in the speaker's mind as to the accuracy of his or her choice of words. Once the Klingon officer referred to above is sure that the object the scanner has found is a vessel, he might report the presence of {Dujna'} <a definite vessel, undoubtedly a vessel.>
So, after reading the relevant tkd part, I understood that by saying {tamghayna' 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'}, I'm not actually saying "perfect darkness is the true light" (true as opposed to fake/counterfeit).
By saying {tamghayna' 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'}, i'm actually saying "perfect darkness is the definite light" as in "perfect darkness is surely the light".
You're missing something fundamental. A verb used adjectivally describes something about *the noun* it follows. The suffix {-na'} indicates the degree of *your* (the speaker's) certainty about it. {Dujna'} is not "a vessel that is definite", it is "a thing that the speaker is sure is definitely a vessel". {teH} and {-na'} are not even comparable, because they apply to different things. A {ngeblaw'bogh Dujna'} is a thing which the speaker is sure is a ship (as opposed to, say, a missile), but which he or she thinks may be fake (i.e., definitely a ship, but a fake ship as opposed to a real ship). -- De'vID
De'vID:
You're missing something fundamental. A verb used adjectivally describes something about *the noun* it follows. The suffix {-na'} indicates the degree of *your* (the speaker's) certainty about it.
Good to know. Thanks for clarifying this. In fact, this has been one of the things I was having difficulty understanding with regards to {-na'}. Hugh:
As I understand it, {teH} is “true” in the sense of truthfulness, not “true” in the sense of genuineness.
I wondered about this too, but I told myself "Don't argue with me soldier ! Use {teH}, use it now ! Use it like there's no tomorrow !" However, I *do* wonder.. If {teH} indeed cannot be used to express "genuineness", what word/words could we use to express the opposite of {ngeb} ? ~ chchch
On 8/14/2019 8:18 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
However, I *do* wonder.. If {teH} indeed cannot be used to express "genuineness", what word/words could we use to express the opposite of {ngeb} ?
ngebbe' -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 8/14/2019 8:56 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
ngebbe'
I've thought of this option, but it doesn't have the "punch" of the word "true/genuine".
Of course, I realize that in a constructed language, we can't expect much, but even so..
Say /I agree/ in Klingon. Give it punch. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Say I agree in Klingon. Give it punch.
I can't. Indeed, saying "I don't disagree" lacks the punch of "I agree". Or the "I reject" word too.. And an even better example is the {qamuSHa'} which *feels* light years away from "I love you". But since it's a constructed language, I guess we'll have to make due with the limited choices we have.. ~ cjcjcj
Okrand on “agree”: (st.klingon, 3/02/1998): Which brings us to {Qochbe'} and {QochHa'}. Both consist of the verb {Qoch} “disagree” plus a negative suffix. … {Qochbe'} implies an absence of disagreeing (hence “agree”); {QochHa'} implies that any disagreeing was misplaced or misconstrued or perhaps has been "undone." English lacks a simple way to say this. If you want some punch, he’s provided at least two types: (KGT 159): The slang term [{qang}] may be found in such sentences as {jIHDaq Daqang} (“You always agree with me, you always cooperate with me”; literally, “You pour [something] into me”). To say that someone “pours (always agrees)” is somewhat derogatory, implying that the agreeing or cooperating may be for ulterior motives. Nonslang equivalents of {qang}, though lacking the negative connotation, are {reH Qochbe'} (“always agree”), {reH yeq} (“always cooperate”), and {reH jIj} (“always be cooperative”). (KGT 105-06): … the Klingon phrase {wa' DoS wIqIp} (“We hit one target”) or the shorter {DoS wIqIp} (“We hit a target”) is frequently heard in conversations that have nothing to do with shooting, targets, or even weaponry. It is a way of saying “We agree”. By the same token, {cha' DoSmey DIqIp} ("We hit two targets") or the shorter {DoSmey DIqIp} ("We hit targets") normally means "We disagree." … Incidentally, the word {DoSmey} brings with it connotations of "scattered all about," so {DoSmey DIqIp} really means something like "We hit scattered targets," an image that fits the idiomatic meaning of "We disagree" quite well. There may be others, however keep in mind… (KGT 172): Agreeing is not a trait typically associated with Klingon nature, however, and apparently, at least under certain circumstances, this may extend to grammar as well. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons From: mayqel qunen'oS SuStel:
Say I agree in Klingon. Give it punch.
I can't. Indeed, saying "I don't disagree" lacks the punch of "I agree". Or the "I reject" word too.. And an even better example is the {qamuSHa'} which *feels* light years away from "I love you". But since it's a constructed language, I guess we'll have to make due with the limited choices we have..
For many years I’ve argued about the use of {qamuSHa’} for “I love you.” The problem is that “I love you,” is completely dependent upon context to give it meaning. A mother means one thing when saying it to her child, a different thing when saying it to her husband, a different thing when saying it to a sibling, a different thing when saying it to HER mother, a different thing when saying it to a childhood friend, a different thing when saying it to her dog, a different thing when saying it to her favorite TV star… etc. The relationship and the circumstance give meaning to an otherwise uselessly vague statement. If you want to say it with meaning in Klingon, then either preface it with a lengthy description of the context (either spoken in the conversation, or as a description for the reader to understand wtf you are saying with the vague term), or say what you really mean: reH parmaqqaywI’ SoH. tuq’a’ wIchenchoHmoH vIneH. HInay. puqwI’ SoH. bIquvmo’ choquvmoH ‘ej jIbelchu’. In other words, say what you mean. Don’t just take the original words and translate the words. Translate the MEANING. Start with the extreme specific, root level meaning of the idea or thought that has already been translated into English (or whatever language you find the original expression in), and translate THAT MEANING into Klingon. The original idea has already been compromised when stated in its original expression. It was already an imperfect translation of the idea, just to get it on a page or out of somebody’s mouth. The imperfections of different languages do not align particularly well, so starting with a compromised expression and running it through the flawed filter of the second language often results in a further compromised expression, sometimes mangled beyond usefulness. All too often, people take the shortcut and start with the words instead of the meaning, and this often works well enough, but it is never as good as it would have been if you back up and start with the pre-lingual thought that became the words you are trying to translate. Ironically, the more loyal you are to the original words, the less likely you are to result in an effective translation. This is what I’m pointing to when I say that Klingon is a language, not a code. If it were a code, then loyalty to the original choice of words and grammar would be a good thing, but when translating between languages, it is a bad thing. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 14, 2019, at 9:43 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
Say I agree in Klingon. Give it punch.
I can't. Indeed, saying "I don't disagree" lacks the punch of "I agree". Or the "I reject" word too..
And an even better example is the {qamuSHa'} which *feels* light years away from "I love you".
But since it's a constructed language, I guess we'll have to make due with the limited choices we have..
~ cjcjcj _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/14/2019 10:17 AM, Will Martin wrote:
For many years I’ve argued about the use of {qamuSHa’} for “I love you.” The problem is that “I love you,” is completely dependent upon context to give it meaning.
A mother means one thing when saying it to her child, a different thing when saying it to her husband, a different thing when saying it to a sibling, a different thing when saying it to HER mother, a different thing when saying it to a childhood friend, a different thing when saying it to her dog, a different thing when saying it to her favorite TV star… etc.
The relationship and the circumstance give meaning to an otherwise uselessly vague statement.
/I love you/ is not uselessly vague, as you have just demonstrated. It is a phrase that has many meanings, given the context. When your spouse does something nice for you and you feel gratitude and say /I love you,/ it means a very specific thing. The words themselves don't convey the specificity, but both of you know the exact meaning. So who says this doesn't happen in Klingon? Why is Klingon ultra-specific in your mind? I mean, sure, there's the bit in /Power Klingon/ about Klingon being accurate, not approximate, but this doesn't have to apply to intimate moments like this. The stuff in /PK/ is all about how to maintain the respect of the people and animals around you, not the finer points of Klingon subtlety. I don't necessarily think that *qamuSHa'* has a one-to-one relationship with /I love you,/ but if Jadzia does something really nice for Worf, who feels gratitude, why can't he say *qamuSHa'* and both of them know exactly what he is talking about? Klingon actually has a lot of scope to be vague in very useful ways. I once wrote a story in Klingon and when I was done I realized I had not given a single clue to the reader about the sex of any of the characters. Then I thought, /does it matter?/ My story wasn't really focused on character development. The Klingons were just performing their duties. Being specific is nice when you need to do it, but if you're translating something that is already vague in the source language, then it's perfectly fine — maybe even more faithful — to keep it vague in the target language. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 8/14/2019 10:41 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{QochHa'} implies that any disagreeing was misplaced or misconstrued or perhaps has been "undone."
I can't understand this.
What is "misplaced disagreeing" ? Is it a misunderstandment ?
And what is "misconstrued disagreeing" ?
*-Ha'* can mean that something is undone or that it was done incorrectly — in this case, disagreeing with the wrong thing (misconstrued) or at an inappropriate time (misplaced). So *QochHa'* can mean undoing a state of disagreement, or it can mean disagreeing with the wrong thing or at an inappropriate time. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
We don’t disagree as much as you think. I think it is fine to use {qamuSHa’} for “I love you,” whenever sufficient context is known by the recipient of the expression. For that matter, a hug or a smile can convey the same thing. I’m not saying that Klingon requires a more specific expression, but if you are translating the expression for a third party, ignorant of the context, it would be good to either provide that context, or choose a different, more specific expression. I’m just trying to convince people that they should not look at “I love you,” and say, “Oh yeah. In Klingon, that’s {qamuSHa’},” as a one-to-one, perfect, always applicable translation. Just provide the equivalent phrase and your work is done. Stop thinking. Just do it. My comment was particularly intended as a response to the suggestion that “I unhate you,” doesn’t really convey the meaning of “I love you.” If you intend to say, “I love you,” and you want to convey something that {qamuSHa’} doesn’t feel right for, then don’t use {qamuSHa’.} There are a LOT of alternatives that may more clearly express your personal meaning. Feel free to dig deeper and come up with the expression that is closer to your intent. In fact, you are probably doing a better job of translating what you mean when you say, in English, “I love you,” if you abandon the words and look into what you mean to express. Actually, I recommend this in English, too. “I love you,” is less of an expression than it is a confirmation or affirmation of something both parties are already assumed to understand. The understanding doesn’t come from the expression. It comes from the context. The vagueness is rooted in the extreme dependency on context. I often tell my wife that I love her. I also often go to the additional effort to more specifically express the elements of my feelings for her so that I don’t fall back on ritual and habit, confirming unexpressed, specific meaning, enabling me to drift away from actually loving her, continually confirming my affection for her while feeling it less intensely, until one day one of us has that sad moment of realization that we’d rather be with someone else or even be alone instead of continuing to be annoyed by the proximity and intimacy of this person we used to like a lot, but we can’t quite remember why. I work, every day, at being clear about what I mean when I tell her that I love her. I still say it the vague, confirming expression, but I persistently push to state more specific appreciation, affection, respect, support, and the joys of her excellent company. I point out the positive changes to my life that are all her fault. I don’t just say, “I love you,” and leave it at that, and I don’t recommend that one always says, {qamuSHa’} and thinks they have accomplished translation perfection. Job done. Move along. This is not the more specific expression that you are looking for. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 14, 2019, at 10:32 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/14/2019 10:17 AM, Will Martin wrote:
For many years I’ve argued about the use of {qamuSHa’} for “I love you.” The problem is that “I love you,” is completely dependent upon context to give it meaning.
A mother means one thing when saying it to her child, a different thing when saying it to her husband, a different thing when saying it to a sibling, a different thing when saying it to HER mother, a different thing when saying it to a childhood friend, a different thing when saying it to her dog, a different thing when saying it to her favorite TV star… etc.
The relationship and the circumstance give meaning to an otherwise uselessly vague statement. I love you is not uselessly vague, as you have just demonstrated. It is a phrase that has many meanings, given the context. When your spouse does something nice for you and you feel gratitude and say I love you, it means a very specific thing. The words themselves don't convey the specificity, but both of you know the exact meaning.
So who says this doesn't happen in Klingon? Why is Klingon ultra-specific in your mind? I mean, sure, there's the bit in Power Klingon about Klingon being accurate, not approximate, but this doesn't have to apply to intimate moments like this. The stuff in PK is all about how to maintain the respect of the people and animals around you, not the finer points of Klingon subtlety.
I don't necessarily think that qamuSHa' has a one-to-one relationship with I love you, but if Jadzia does something really nice for Worf, who feels gratitude, why can't he say qamuSHa' and both of them know exactly what he is talking about?
Klingon actually has a lot of scope to be vague in very useful ways. I once wrote a story in Klingon and when I was done I realized I had not given a single clue to the reader about the sex of any of the characters. Then I thought, does it matter? My story wasn't really focused on character development. The Klingons were just performing their duties.
Being specific is nice when you need to do it, but if you're translating something that is already vague in the source language, then it's perfectly fine — maybe even more faithful — to keep it vague in the target language.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/14/2019 11:02 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I think it is fine to use {qamuSHa’} for “I love you,” whenever sufficient context is known by the recipient of the expression. For that matter, a hug or a smile can convey the same thing. I’m not saying that Klingon requires a more specific expression, but if you are translating the expression for a third party, ignorant of the context, it would be good to either provide that context, or choose a different, more specific expression.
If you're translating the expression for a third party who is ignorant of the context, then adding in context isn't going to make a difference. ("Translate /I love you/ into Klingon for me." "Which sort of /I love you?/" "Doesn't matter." They want the general-purpose expression, not a specific meaning.) If the third party isn't ignorant of the context, then they already have the information necessary to determine which /I love you/ you're talking about. Basically, the same context, or lack thereof, that would have applied in English applies in Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Since the local authority has determined that my earlier comments on {qamuSHa’} are invalid, I’ll reverse direction and suggest why “I unhate you,” can mean “I love you,” and do so better than your gut suggests. Okrand has provided the explanation of what {-Ha’} means in a kind of “either/or” description of either meaning that an action has been reversed, or it is wrongly done. Examples of each might be {chu’Ha’} for disengaging something that has already been engaged, or {yajHa’} for misunderstanding, as opposed to merely not understanding. I suggest that the consistent core meaning that includes both of these either/or conditions and more, which is harder to describe, is that {-Ha’} is fundamentally more negative than {-be’}. There is a continuity between the extremes of “engaging" and “disengaging", and “not engaging” is between these extremes. There is a continuity between “understanding” and “misunderstanding”, and “not understanding” is between these extremes. And so, there is a continuity between “hate” and “love” and “not hate” is between these extremes, just as there is a continuity between “disagree” and “agree”, and “not agree” is between these extremes. You can “not agree” simply because you don’t care about the topic enough to agree or disagree. If you disagree, then you care. You are negatively invested in the topic that the person you disagree with presents as true. In every case, if {-be’} is not negative enough to cover your meaning, {-Ha’} should be able to cover your need for an antonym. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 14, 2019, at 9:43 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
Say I agree in Klingon. Give it punch.
I can't. Indeed, saying "I don't disagree" lacks the punch of "I agree". Or the "I reject" word too..
And an even better example is the {qamuSHa'} which *feels* light years away from "I love you".
But since it's a constructed language, I guess we'll have to make due with the limited choices we have..
~ cjcjcj _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/14/2019 1:11 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Since the local authority has determined that my earlier comments on {qamuSHa’} are invalid,
jIrangbe'. ngoDmey tIwuq 'ej tIHub. pojwIj Daparchugh, poj nIv yImuch. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maghoH ‘e’ DatIvlaw’. vItIvbe’. munuQ neH. maQoch ‘e’ DamaSlaw’. maQochbe’ ‘e’ vIHar. maQochHa’be’. maQochbe’ neH. [jIbachHa’ ‘e’ vISov, ‘ach qechwIj DayajlaHchu' ‘e’ vIpIH.] maQochmeH jISaHnIS ‘ach jISaHbe’. jISaHHa’be’. jISaHbe’ neH. qatIch vIneHbe’. ghaytan qatIchlaw’, ‘ach qatIch ‘e’ vIHechbe'. qavuvbej. bIpo’bej ‘e’ Dabajta’. jIghoHtaH vIneHbe’. yInwIj vItIv ‘e’ vImaS. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:22 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/14/2019 1:11 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Since the local authority has determined that my earlier comments on {qamuSHa’} are invalid,
jIrangbe'. ngoDmey tIwuq 'ej tIHub. pojwIj Daparchugh, poj nIv yImuch.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/14/2019 1:38 PM, Will Martin wrote:
maghoH ‘e’ DatIvlaw’.
maghoH 'e' vItIvbe'. jIHvaD poj val potlh law' roj potlh puS. mameqchugh 'ej matIwbe'chugh, pov ja'chuqghach, vabDot maQochchugh.
vItIvbe’. munuQ neH.
vaj yIjatlhQo': teHbe' mu'meywIj vorgh 'e' maqmo' Daqvam rangwI'. bIghoHqangbe'chugh, yIvaQQo'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qay’be’. reH mayajHa’chuqtaH. nunuQtaH ghu’vam ‘ach mamevlaHbe’law’. malajnIS neH. cholughmoHtaH DaneH ‘ej qalughmoHtaH vIneH. ghaytan maDoghtaH. raSvamDaq mateybe’laH. maSoplaH SoH jIH je. matlheDnISbe’ SoH, jIH joq. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:52 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/14/2019 1:38 PM, Will Martin wrote:
maghoH ‘e’ DatIvlaw’.
maghoH 'e' vItIvbe'. jIHvaD poj val potlh law' roj potlh puS. mameqchugh 'ej matIwbe'chugh, pov ja'chuqghach, vabDot maQochchugh.
vItIvbe’. munuQ neH.
vaj yIjatlhQo': teHbe' mu'meywIj vorgh 'e' maqmo' Daqvam rangwI'. bIghoHqangbe'chugh, yIvaQQo'.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
paq'batlh:
qeylIS tIghmey'e' DaH tIQoy teH tIghmey 'ej bIH bolIjlaHbe' Hear now, […] The ways of Kahless, For they are true And unforgettable. PB
I can't understand, how this use of "true", is any different from the "true" of "true love, true hate, true light, etc".. Perhaps, since english isn't my native language, I can't perceive the difference. But you bet your bird of prey, that I can't *feel* any difference whatsoever. Can someone shed some light on all this ? ~ cdcdcd
On 8/14/2019 6:54 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
paq'batlh:
qeylIS tIghmey'e' DaH tIQoy teH tIghmey 'ej bIH bolIjlaHbe' Hear now, […] The ways of Kahless, For they are true And unforgettable. PB
I can't understand, how this use of "true", is any different from the "true" of "true love, true hate, true light, etc"..
Perhaps, since english isn't my native language, I can't perceive the difference. But you bet your bird of prey, that I can't *feel* any difference whatsoever.
Can someone shed some light on all this ?
Dictionary.com lists 17 different senses of the adjective /true:/ https://www.dictionary.com/browse/true?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic I don't see that we have much evidence to say which ones of those *teH* means. I'm sure it only means some of them, but picking which is tricky. I would not be so quick to assume that *teH *means only conforming to reality and not genuineness. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I’m suspecting you are missing something even more fundamental here than language. There’s a cultural association here about “light” and “darkness” that may not be directly translatable using words in Klingon that refer to the presence or absence of light. Klingons may simply use these words for the stuff our eyes use to form images. It may have nothing to do with goodness and evil, which is clearly your intent. This association between light and goodness and dark and evil may very well not be universal. It is symbolic and abstract, and symbols are cultural, not linguistic. A Swastika is probably meaningless to a Klingon. A cross is probably meaningless to a Klingon. The anarchy symbol is probably meaningless to a Klingon. The Triforce symbol is probably meaningless to most humans here in the real world AND to Klingons. Your use of light and darkness may very well be of a similar nature. For that matter, good and evil are abstracts. Different cultures would construct different lists of what is good and what is evil, which is at the root of your original intent. The Star Trek Universe is rich in this specific contrast between cultures. What you are really saying is, “What *YOU* (and your culture) perceive as the most extreme evil is what I (and my culture) believe to be the most extreme good, and my culture is right and yours is wrong.” That’s a pretty complex concept. I’m not sure that any of us have enough skill with the Klingon language and thorough familiarity with Klingon culture to confidently translate your meaning. To do so would require extreme presumptions about specific abstract meaning within the combination of Klingon language and culture. There’s the additional cultural complexity of your failure to identify the culture you are representing, and its absence from the Star Trek Universe that Klingon language and culture is based upon. A Klingon would not understand the term “The Dark Side”, since it has a very specific meaning within the culture of a fictional Universe that does not exist in the fictional Star Trek Universe. I honestly believe that every Klingon Bible Translation Project has similar problems because the Christian mythos is absent from the Klingon culture and the Star Trek Universe. You could have more success if you were to similarly represent the cultural value differences between Klingons and Ferengi (Honor vs. Greed/Financial Success), or Klingons and Romulans (Honor vs. Dominance Through Deception), or Klingons vs. Humans (Resolution Via Violent Dominance, vs. Peaceful Diplomatic Negotiation), or Klingons vs. Cardasians (primarily different in that Cardasians are more blatantly racist, with less focus on honor). I’m guessing that Romulans would be the closest cultural equivalent to the Star Wars Dark Side, though they lack the psychopathic dyad of Emperor and Dark Lord as political leaders, and they lack all the metaphysical/magical powers associated with the Dark Side, so I suspect it would lack much of the passion you want to translate. It’s like trying to explain Quantum Physics in terms of Relativity. The two ideas are fundamentally disassociated. Einstein originally argued against Quantum Physics because it didn’t fit the Relativistic model, but later decided that both Relativity and Quantum Physics had been proven as accurate, though no one has succeeded in developing an acceptable Grand Unification Theory that offers one explanation for how both of these fundamental systems of the laws of physics could coexist. Except for me, of course, but I have no academic credentials, so my idea is obviously without merit (even though it’s a really beautiful model I enjoy pondering when the real world doesn’t distract me too much). For the most part, I’ve learned to keep my interesting ideas to myself (most of the time) and focus conversations on contexts that are appropriate for the subculture participating in the conversation with me. Mixed success on that... charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 14, 2019, at 6:26 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently, charghwI' wrote and I replied:
charghwI':
don’t expect everyone who reads what you’ve written or hears what you’ve said to be keenly aware of whatever fine shade of meaning that you intended to convey by choosing one or the other. jIH: This is a wonderful comment indeed. I've noticed, that as the years go by, and the more I use klingon, I tend to *feel* certain words in a certain way, without though this "perception" of mine actually being based on solid Ca'Non.
As it seems, I just noticed one such case..
Yesterday, I wondered how to express "darkness is the real light". So instinctively I wrote:
{tamghayna' 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'}
I used {-na'} because in my mind, I had attributed to it the meaning "to be real, true" as opposed to "counterfeit". In other words, somewhere along the way, I started perceiving the {-na'} to be conveying a meaning opposite to the verb {ngeb}.
Luckily though, yesterday, I had the idea of checking with the tkd. So, lets remember, the way {-na'} is defined:
tkd:
{-na'} <definite> This is the counterpart of {-Hey.} It indicates that there is no doubt in the speaker's mind as to the accuracy of his or her choice of words. Once the Klingon officer referred to above is sure that the object the scanner has found is a vessel, he might report the presence of {Dujna'} <a definite vessel, undoubtedly a vessel.>
So, after reading the relevant tkd part, I understood that by saying {tamghayna' 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'}, I'm not actually saying "perfect darkness is the true light" (true as opposed to fake/counterfeit).
By saying {tamghayna' 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'}, i'm actually saying "perfect darkness is the definite light" as in "perfect darkness is surely the light".
Perhaps there doesn't seem to be any significant difference between these two translations..
Or is there ?
Lets read:
"perfect darkness is the true light" "perfect darkness is the definite light"
But if I say "perfect darkness is the definite true light", then perhaps a difference starts to show.
Saying "perfect darkness is the definite true light", means that perhaps there are many kinds of light which can be considered "true", but only one is actually the true one, while the rest only appear as being true.
So, I think, that by saying {tamghayna'} i'm not expressing the concept of "true light" (as opposed to counterfeit). I'm rather expressing that "it is definitely a light", but a light which may be of the counterfeit variety.
So, to say that "perfect darkness is the true light" (as opposed to the counterfeit kinds of light), perhaps I should write:
{tamghay teH 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'}
Anyways, in no way am I sure that my analysis is correct, so any thoughts and comments are mostly welcomed.
~ hjkhkjkhhjk _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
goodness and evil, which is clearly your intent.
Weeelll.. Actually.. goodness evil je chaHbe' mu'mey'e' vIDelnISbogh. DI'onmey mIgh DelmeH, darkness mu' lulo' christianpu' jIv. DI'onmey mIgh 'oSbe' darkness mu'; potlhbogh Sov 'ach So'lu'pu'bogh 'oS darkness mu'.. The word "darkness" doesn't represent "evil", even though ignorant christians tend to view it that way. What it actually represents, is hidden knowledge. mIgh Sov So'lu'pu'bogh 'e' luHarchugh christianpu', vaj chaHvaD neH qay'.. If christians tend to believe that hidden knowledge is "evil", then that's *their* problem. ~ chchvhc
tlhoghpa' vay', be'Daj ngaghchugh, vaj yem 'ej ghe''orDaq meQ. Hoch jaj wa', chIrgh jaHbe'chugh vay', ghe''orDaq meQ. maqleghDaq DISbe'chugh vay', 'ej yInDaj SeHbe'chu' maqlegh, vaj ghe''orDaq meQ.. qeQvam Har christianpu'.. 'ej meQtaHbogh nuvpu' jaltaHvIS, 'InSepDu'chaj raQ, 'ej yavDaq roSghaH lungaSbogh HanDI'mey pummoH. vaj, mIghbej 'Iv ? hmm ? If someone has premarital relationships he will burn in hell.. If someone doesn't go to church every sunday, he will burn in hell.. If someone doesn't confess to a priest, thus not allowing this priest to have perfect control of his life, then he will burn in hell.. This is the crap christians believe, getting off to the idea of people burning in hell. So, tell me. Who is the truly evil one ? ~ ncbcbc
This even more strongly supports my suggestion that there’s a failure to communicate the abstract context you were attempting to present. naDev lalDan wIjun. It’s a hot topic, unrelated to the mission of the list. People get upset. Know that you are not alone in your aversion to certain belief systems, and try not to pick a fight with those who believe in them. naDev, mavuvnISchuqlaw'. Perhaps there are appropriate battle grounds for this, but this list isn’t one of them. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 14, 2019, at 10:08 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI':
goodness and evil, which is clearly your intent.
Weeelll.. Actually..
goodness evil je chaHbe' mu'mey'e' vIDelnISbogh.
DI'onmey mIgh DelmeH, darkness mu' lulo' christianpu' jIv.
DI'onmey mIgh 'oSbe' darkness mu'; potlhbogh Sov 'ach So'lu'pu'bogh 'oS darkness mu'..
The word "darkness" doesn't represent "evil", even though ignorant christians tend to view it that way.
What it actually represents, is hidden knowledge.
mIgh Sov So'lu'pu'bogh 'e' luHarchugh christianpu', vaj chaHvaD neH qay'..
If christians tend to believe that hidden knowledge is "evil", then that's *their* problem.
~ chchvhc _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/14/2019 1:19 PM, Will Martin wrote:
naDev lalDan wIjun.
naDev lalDan wIjunbe', tlhIngan Hol wIlo'chugh. lo'bejpu' mayqel. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 12:51, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
goodness evil je chaHbe' mu'mey'e' vIDelnISbogh. De'vID: chaH'a'? ;-)
As darth sidious said.. "Evil is a point of view, anakin".
jatlhpu' sidious darth, 'ej mu'meyDaj vIlo'.. anakin, jaS DI'onmey mIgh per Hoch nuv vuD.
I was alluding to the fact that you used {chaH} instead of {bIH}. Are the words "goodness" and "evil" beings capable of language? -- De'vID
On 8/14/2019 9:45 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I’m suspecting you are missing something even more fundamental here than language. There’s a cultural association here about “light” and “darkness” that may not be directly translatable using words in Klingon that refer to the presence or absence of light. Klingons may simply use these words for the stuff our eyes use to form images. It may have nothing to do with goodness and evil, which is clearly your intent. This association between light and goodness and dark and evil may very well not be universal.
But he may not be writing or translating with the intent of conveying the idea to Klingons. mayqel was, for example, just writing poetry about a character from the fiction of Tolkien, in which light and darkness are very much associated with good and evil, respectively. In the world of Tolkien, darkness is a tool of the Enemy. It has become a thing of fear and danger, and only the elves remember a time when the darkness was natural and good. Assume for a moment that Klingons don't have the same light/darkness symbolism. If mayqel were writing for Klingons it would be entirely appropriate — even necessary — to keep the symbolism. If he /were/ writing for Klingons, this aspect of the fiction of Tolkien would simply be culturally incomprehensible, and no translation would be adequate. I am reminded of the famous story of the anthropologists who worked with certain African tribes, telling the story of Hamlet to them. To this tribe, there was no such thing as a ghost, a chief should have many wives, only someone of your own age cohort has a right to enact revenge. The tribe's elders listened to the story, then proceeded to tell the anthropologist why she misinterpreted the meaning of the story, and what it really meant. Nick had the same problem in translating /Hamlet,/ and his solution was to write his own cultural interpretation of the play to match whatever he wanted. One doesn't usually have this luxury. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
De'vID -
Hugh Son puqloD -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin