Having been a lurking newbie, (a) irayo for all I’ve learned from studying this thread; and (b) I promise not to ask newbie grammar questions. What I would like to raise, if I may, are two issues related to translation theory and practice, and to ask how these get addressed in this forum.
As an example, I’ll address theology and source language in what is perhaps the most contentious phrase in the text translated:
Come, let us go down
Za'u, pxoeng kllkivä
Theology
As a Jew, I cannot accept pxoeng. That doesn’t mean you can’t translate it that way, but be aware that your translation is sectarian. I wonder how this is dealt with in other conglang translations?
The use of first person plural for descend was a source of ‘discussion’ with pagans long before Christianity raised the issue. The traditional Jewish explanation is that God was speaking to the angels. Thus, a third person plural is appropriate, and given the slightly formal language, perhaps ayoeng is preferable to awnga.
Regardless of their personal belief, I think most academics would not accept that the original writers were Trinitarian, and thus would view the first person triad as epigetical, reading into the text, not exegetical.
Source Language
Translating from the original language vs translating from a translation can produce profound differences, and how to be relatively true to the original language even if they don’t speak it has long been an active discussion among Bible translators. I don’t know if there’s a conlang protocol on it, but if the standard is to translate from English, my comments here are irrelevant.
“habhah” (or “havah”) the Hebrew word translated “Come” in English has nothing to do with any verb of motion. in this form it occurs only once elsewhere in the Bible, when Pharoah says to his courtiers of the prolific Jews, “Come, let us deal wisely with them lest they multiply.” (Exodus 1:10) The word is probably related to the semitic root YHB, which does not occur in Hebrew, but means “give” in Syriac, etc.) The final “h” may be a cohortative. The word also appears as a plural imperative, e.g. Psalm 96, where it means “give God glory and strength”, not with any implication of giving something to God but rather meaning “ascribe to God glory and strength”, i.e. acknowledge God’s glory and strength.
In any case, the word is an invitational one. You may know the song “hava nagilla”, which is “Let’s rejoice”. Pharoah has an idea and he suggests that the courtiers go along with it. (Not that they have any real choice. And perhaps the same is implied in Gen 11:7.)
In English, “Come” may be used as invitational, although I think “Let’s” is usually more appropriate (and is indeed sometimes used by a person who’s going to do it anyway and expects those addressed to go along with it). In Na’vi, however, there’s an option that English doesn’t have. It seems to me that the best translation nìNa’vi might be sentence-final ko.
Conclusion
As a result of eliminating the Trinitarianism, and making use of an Na’vi option not available to English, I would translate:
Let's go down
Ayoeng kllkivä, ko.
My questions:
Is this appropriate to the thread or off-topic?
If not, is there a thread appropriate for this?
p.s. Although IMHO papel seems closer to Babel than pxapxel, that’s a question for more experienced speakers than I. With regard to the vocalic ll, I’ll point out that the Hebrew has a distinct vowel, which is accented.
