Translating a quote: am I doing it right?

Started by Unil Akawng, February 15, 2010, 12:42:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Unil Akawng

Olo'eyktanri, fkoru ke zene livu ke tìfpìl alahe sì ke tìkangkem alahe, slä tsam. - Nikxolo Makxiavelli  


Rutxe peng oeru txo oel aykeyeyti soli!
Tukruhu ne ayoeng zola'u a fkori tukrufa tìyerkup! - Александр Невский
На'ви-русский словарь v.2.09 для jMemorize

AuLekye'ung

#1
Kaltxi, ma tsmukan!

For one thing, you might want olo'eyktan-yä 'itan, clan leader's son, as there is no literal translation for prince, at least, that's the closest I could come up with.

"Therefore" is "tafral"

For "must have no other thoughts", you may want to try "must think no other thoughts"

zene fp<iv>ìl ke ay-la-tì-fpìl-it     (This looks really awkward, if someone knows a different way of writing that, it would be fantastic if you could share that.
must think-SUB no plural-other-thought-ACC

For "nor other occupation", I think ulte would work better there.

ulte k<iv>angkem ke la-tì-kangkem-it
and work-SUB no other work-ACC

"la-" also means other, but I think that "lahe" better refers to a specific other thought(s).

Now, mungwrr- means except-, so perhaps "except war" can be translated literally as:

mungwrr-tsam

So, perhaps as:

Olo'eyktan-yä 'itan, tafral, zene fp<iv>ìl ke ay-la-tì-fpìl-it, ulte k<iv>angkem ke la-tì-kangkem-it, mungwrr-tsam.  - Nikxolo Makxiavelli
Clan leader-GEN son, therefore, must think-SUB no plural-other-thought-ACC, and work-SUB no other-work-ACC, except-war.
A son of a clan leader (king), therefore, must think no other thoughts, and work no other work, except war.  - Niccolo Machiavelli

Mind you, I could be wrong about some of these, especially the messy prefixes.

EDIT:
"Rutxe" means "to please".

You could do ; Peu oe-yä ay-keyey lu?
What I-GEN PLURAL-errors be?
What are my errors?
Txo *fìzìsìst*it oel ke lu, kxawm oel tutet lepamtseo lu.  Oe pxìm fpìl nìpamtseo, oel rey letrra ayunil oeyä nìpamtseo.

- Älpert Aynstayn

Na'rìghawnu

#2
Quoteprince = clan leader's son
No. Macchiavelli's book has the italian titel "Il principe". It's translated as "The prince", but it doesn't mean "son of the king", but derives from latin "princeps" = "leader, leading person". Macchiavellis book was intended to give advice to the first person in the state. So "clan leader" seems to be ok.

Quotezene fp<iv>ìl ke ay-la-tì-fpìl-it
Well. I'm still absolutely unsure how to make negative phrases. Frommer seems to include double negatives in alike cases. See e. g. his: "slä vay set ke pamähängem kea tì'eyng" (but up to now no answer has arrived [what literally is: ... no answer has not arrived!]). So it very well could be the case, that this HAS to be done this way, what would result in something like "you must not have no other thoughts" = "ke zene fpivìl kea aylatìfpìlit". But even if the doubling of the negative is not correct, it has to be "kea" not "ke", since the negation attributes a noun.

"ulte" is correct, since there are two predicates linked.

Then again the double-negative-problem: It likely has to be "and not work no other work". But until now we don't know the word for the noun "work". We just know the verb, which is "kangkem si", and Frommer stressed out, that "tìkangkem" alone isn't the noun "work". He said: "'Work' needs some explanation, which I'll provide when I have a bit more time." (Until now he didn't.) Besides that, all "si"-constructs are intransitive. Thus no accusative ending in the noun "work". I suspect, that the whole phrase has to be done completely different.

mungwrr as positioned before the noun is NOT linked to it (thus no hyphen; these are two separate words).

Since the "war" is also an object of the verb "must think of / must do", it should also be accusative.

Quote"Rutxe" means "to please".
Since when? Frommer used it himself in the meaning of "please": "Spivaw oeti rutxe, ma oeyä eylan" (Please believe me, my friends).

As Unil suggested, I would also make the "prince" a topical, because you state the topic you want to talk about here. But since "olo'eyktan" ends in a consonant, the topical-ending is "ìri".

Since the sentence is taken out of the context, it's hard to decide, what this "therefore" means, but to me it seems to be something like a conclusion of the preceding chapter/sentences. So I would use "ha" for it (meaning: "so", "as a result").

Ha olo'eyktanìri ke zene fpivìl kea aylatìfpìlit ulte ke tìkangkem sivi kea la[?work?] mungwrr tsamit.

The underlined part is most likely completely wrong.

Unil Akawng

#3
Eyawra aylì'uri a tolìng oeru, oe ayngaru seiyi irayo, ma smuk!

So, after the necessary corrections, the quote looks as follows:

Ha olo'eyktanìri ke zene fpivìl kea aylatìfpìlit ulte kea latìkangkem sivi, mungwrr tsamit.

About tìkangkem: from what I was able to find on this forum and the wiki, it seems we can be reasonably sure it'a a noun (what Frommer said, was that *kangkem is not a valid verb).

On double negation: it seems in Na'vi it works similarly to Russian, so I just followed my instinct. :) I tried to explain it here. (I know it's a bit clumsy, and might still be wrong.)

Still, I'm keen on using the dative construction for this quote, it seems a bit more elegant:

Ha olo'eyktanìri, fkoru ke zene livu kea aylatìfpìl ulte kea latìkangkem, mungwrr tsam.
So, as for a clan leader-TOP, one-DAT must not be<SUBJ> no other thoughts and no other work, except war.
So, a clan leader must have no other thoughts, and no other work, except war.

Is there anything wrong with it in principle?
Tukruhu ne ayoeng zola'u a fkori tukrufa tìyerkup! - Александр Невский
На'ви-русский словарь v.2.09 для jMemorize

Na'rìghawnu

#4
Quote(what Frommer said, was that *kangkem is not a valid verb).
Correct. Stupid me.

But I doubt, that you can simply change the "tìkangkem si" to e. g. "latìkangkem si". Since the set phrase "tìkangkem si" is the verb "work", then it most likely can't be changed easily to something like "do other work".

As for the possessive dative ... well, the first part is likely no problem. But I wonder, whether the "except war"-part might fit. I mean, you say, that the leader must not have (= possess) ... thoughts and ... business [this far seems ok], except war. So he must possess war? This seems not quite ok to me.

Besides that the "fkoru" is irritating. Who is "one" here? It's the clan leader. So why replace him with the general one?


Unil Akawng

#5
Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 05:09:43 AM
But I doubt, that you can simply change the "tìkangkem si" to e. g. "latìkangkem si". Since the set phrase "tìkangkem si" is the verb "work", then it most likely can't be changed easily to something like "do other work".

I agree, we don't know whether the "tìkangekem si" can be changed in the above way. That's one of the reasons I've opted for the dative construction.

Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 05:09:43 AM
So he must possess war? This seems not quite ok to me.

Ahh, I've never thought abut it like this, but probably you are right! Perhaps this could be remedied by something like: "... mungwrr tsay'u tsamä"? That is, "no thoughts and no work, except those of war"? Of course, here tsay'u looks suspect, and it's not even official...

Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 05:09:43 AM
Besides that the "fkoru" is irritating. Who is "one" here? It's the clan leader. So why replace him with the general one?

Well, as I understand we are talking not about a certain specific leader, but of any leader in general, so it seems to be appropriate.
In the movie, they translated fko zene nivume nìtxan as "there's much to learn". By way of analogy, Ha olo'eyktanìri, fkoru ke zene livu ... can probably be translated as "For a clan leader, there should not be..."
Tukruhu ne ayoeng zola'u a fkori tukrufa tìyerkup! - Александр Невский
На'ви-русский словарь v.2.09 для jMemorize

Na'rìghawnu

#6
QuoteIn the movie, they translated fko zene nivume nìtxan as "there's much to learn"
Well, but there is no topic stated before. Since you already have your topic, why introduce another agent?

I think, just
Ha olo'eyktanìri ke zene livu ...
would do it.

I agree, that the version "except those of war" would be more likely correct. But the tsay'u is of course not quite kosher. How about something like:

Ha olo'eyktanìri zene livu latìfpìl fu tìkangkem teri ke'u mungwrr tsam.
So the clan leader must have thoughts or work about nothing except war.

Or even more simple:

Ha olo'eyktanìri zene livu latìfpìl fu tìkangkem ni'aw teri tsam.
So the clan leader must have thoughts or work only concerning war.

But of course, this makes Macchiavellis nice sentence structure quite simple.


Unil Akawng

#7
Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 05:52:16 AM
Well, but there is no topic stated before. Since you already have your topic, why introduce another agent?

The whole sentence from the movie went: Zìsìta amrr ftolia ohe, slä zene fko nivume nìtxan. So here we have a similar agent change. This may be purely due to the fact Norm's Na'vi sucks, of course. ;D

Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 05:52:16 AM
I think, just
Ha olo'eyktanìri ke zene livu ...
would do it.

Indeed! The topical suffix in this case just replaces the dative, right? Somehow this solution never occured to me.

Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 05:52:16 AM
Ha olo'eyktanìri zene livu latìfpìl fu tìkangkem teri ke'u mungwrr tsam.
So the clan leader must have thoughts or work about nothing except war.

"Teri", nang! Ngaru irayo seiyi nìmun! Oel ke omìmum fìlì'ut vay set. Fìtìralpeng sìltsan lu!
Tukruhu ne ayoeng zola'u a fkori tukrufa tìyerkup! - Александр Невский
На'ви-русский словарь v.2.09 для jMemorize

Na'rìghawnu

#8
QuoteZìsìta amrr ftolia ohe, slä zene fko nivume nìtxan.

Where does this come from?

Zìsìt-a           a-mrr         ft<ol>ia       ohe,           slä  zene   fko   n<iv>ume    nìtxan.
year-ATTR(?)  ATTR-five   study<PFV>  1<DEFER>, but  must   one  learn<SJV>  much.

The "a" of "zìsìt" is unexplained, I think. And shouldn't it be "ayzìsìt"?
But, besides that: Yes, I think, this is not a good example to learn from. The shift of the agent seems really strange. Why should this be necessary? He isn't talking about people in general, just about his own person. So the general "one/they" doesn't seem to fit at all.
At least he doesn't state a topic in the first place.

QuoteThe topical suffix in this case just replaces the dative, right?

Yes, at least we have evidence that the topical can replace a genitive. And comparing it to the usage of the topical in Japanese, it seems that a topic very well can replace any given case. (OK, I know, that Frommer doesn't know Japanese, so it's not clear, whether he uses an alike concept, ...)

I'm glad, that my thoughts gave you a hint. I always like to help people.

Unil Akawng

#9
Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 09:02:14 AM
Where does this come from?
From the wiki, here. Of course, considering this line belongs to Norm, it may contain some mistakes.

Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 09:02:14 AM
So the general "one/they" doesn't seem to fit at all.
I feel the same way, actually. On the other hand, Na'vi is supposed to be alien, so maybe it's acceptable...
Kxawm aynga zene pivey 'eyngit ta Karyu Pawl teri fìtxele. :)

Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 09:02:14 AM
OK, I know, that Frommer doesn't know Japanese, so it's not clear, whether he uses an alike concept, ...
Well, a wiki-book on Na'vi makes the following blanket statement: "The topic marker preempts the case of the noun: that is, when a noun is made topical, it takes the -ri/-ìri suffix rather than the case suffix one would expect from its grammatical role."

Quote from: Na'rìghawnu on February 16, 2010, 09:02:14 AM
I'm glad, that my thoughts gave you a hint. I always like to help people.
Sute asìltsan tok a fìtseng txantsan leiu! :)
Tukruhu ne ayoeng zola'u a fkori tukrufa tìyerkup! - Александр Невский
На'ви-русский словарь v.2.09 для jMemorize

AuLekye'ung

Quote
Quote"Rutxe" means "to please".
Since when? Frommer used it himself in the meaning of "please": "Spivaw oeti rutxe, ma oeyä eylan" (Please believe me, my friends).
Woops, I used Sir. Haxalot's dictionary for that, which says it's a verb.

Txo *fìzìsìst*it oel ke lu, kxawm oel tutet lepamtseo lu.  Oe pxìm fpìl nìpamtseo, oel rey letrra ayunil oeyä nìpamtseo.

- Älpert Aynstayn

Na'rìghawnu

#11

Well ... don't know Sir. Haxalot, but this surely is a mistake.

It's really a difficult situation we are in at the moment, because there is splattered information here and there ... and no really trustworthy basic material. Of course, I'm too by way not confident in my understanding of Na'vi a lot of times, but at least I think I'm aware of what I don't know. The "rutxe = a verb" in this "dictionary" may simply be a typo, but the problem arouses out of the fact, that many people are giving advices or even create "study materials" containing quite fundamental errors and misinformation. I'm seeing this everywhere. E. g. this morning I discovered a German study material about subordinate clauses ... while it is done quite ok in many points, it completely messed it up about subordinate clauses as objects or subjects (futa, a fìu etc.). The material includes exercises and also the "solutions" to the given tasks ... and - as far it comes to the named clauses - the given solutions are simply wrong. I image people using this material, even enjoying the study of it (because - as said - it's quite ok in general) ... and remembering completely wrong information. Then they construct sentences by themselfes ... of course wrong sentences ... then they try to help other people and give advice ... of course wrong advice ... then they themselfes are compiling and publishing "study materials" ...

Ok. I completely drifted away from the topic of this thread and beg your pardon. But the "not having" of an official source to which one could point in all these cases makes it quite a hard time at the moment.