That that is is that... (Translation Challenge)
Came across this translation exercise on ConWorkshop and thought it might interest you guys. Here's the text:
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is not. Is not 'is that' it? It is.
That that is, is that that is not, 'is not.' Is that it? It is.
How do you guys' languages handle these sentences? Do you end up with a tongue twister like English? Or is there more differentiation?
ANSWER:
Kaiidth. Ri kaiidth, rik. Kya? Nam-tor.
Kya. Ri rik. Kya? Nam-tor.
Kya rik nam-tor. 'Kya ish' ha? Nam-tor.
Nam, nam-tor ri kya, 'rik.' Kya? Nam-tor.
EXPLANATION: (hints, clues)
Kaiidth means "that which is, is." and is central to Vulcan and many C'thia and Surak teachings. Vulcan doesn't use articles like 'the' or 'a' or 'that' with those words being used for clarity in questions. Words inherit value from left to right, dog yellow, the dog is yellow, yellow-dog a more so breed of dog. Logically, irrelevant words are omitted. For double negatives and conundrums such as this, ri (no), rik (prefix without), rik (adjective isn't), are used. Kya, to exist, and nam-tor, to be, are mostly interchangeable, but for "there are" nam-tor is used, and from hypothetical to ideological existence, poetic, using kya. Because of word-inheritance, "that that is" could be typed in full as 'that which is', but is redundant for fluent speakers.
(Kya'i is certainly poetic, emphasizing "I" = now, with even rarer suffix dth.)
Learner's Note:
Nam-tor, to be/exist, is used to state definite existence, but will be omitted by more fluent speakers.
words/
Nam-tor = to be/exist, kya = existence, ri = no/not, rik' = without, kaiidth = that which is, is.
/LLAP
