[tlhIngan Hol] bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD
sustel at trimboli.name
Tue Jun 5 06:30:01 PDT 2018
On 6/4/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>>> vaj bIQDaq jul mave'taH,
>> I think what you're going for is *vaj bIQDaq julDaq mave'*/So we
>> travel on a mission in the water toward the sun./ The word *jul*
>> needs some kind of reason for being there.
> So this is probably a very Indo-European-centric view, but I always
> read places with a locative marker as something like a “locative case”
> and places without one as an “accusative case”.
You're right to read places, or any noun or noun phrase, with a locative
marker as locative case. That's exactly what it is. However, Klingon
does not have an accusative (or nominative) case; direct objects and
subjects are determined purely by position.
Oh, I think I know what I did wrong. I used a no object verb prefix.
Does “vaj bIQ'a'Daq jul wIve' maH” make better sense here? (Or
perhaps wIjaH instead of wIve' maH, since we have attested examples
of jaH taking a direct object, at least according to boQwI'’s
examples for the jaH entry.)
That's right: we don't know if *ve'* can be used transitively. I rather
believe that it doesn't. Use *wIjaH.*
> I know that’s probably not accurate, but that’s how I usually try to
> figure whether or not I want a -Daq. In this sentence I’m trying to
> communicate that jul is the destination, and bIQ is where mave' is
> taking place, but if they both have -Daq, what prevents one from
> reading it as “on the sun in the water”? (i.e., the water contains a
> sun, and we are traveling with a purpose on that sun.)
> Would -vaD be a wrong suffix to distinguish the roles of bIQ and jul
> in this sentence? e.g.: bIQDaq julvaD mave'.
It would be wrong. *julvaD* means you're traveling for the sun's
benefit, or you're giving something to the sun. The song lyric literally
means traveling /toward/ the sun. That's *-Daq.*
As for /on the sun in the water,/ the only thing you can do about that
is reword. Klingon *-Daq* is a very general locative, and usually
doesn't let you distinguish between being in, on, at, or by something.
> naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,
>> Poetry again. In prose this would be better as *'ej tIjpu'
>> juppu'ma'*/And our friends have boarded./ This definitely needs to be
>> an *'ej,* not a *je.*
> The je is meant to communicate that we are here, and our friends are
> here too. Would it work better if I reverse the clauses in the last
> line of the chorus?
But you didn't SAY we are here, so there's nothing to /too/ about. You
said we go, and you said we inhabit.
The way I see it, this is purely an *'ej* situation. We go, we inhabit,
and our friends are here.
>>> Sumqu' je latlhpu' tu'lu'.
>> You've got two main verbs in this sentence; it doesn't work. The *je*
>> is a bit wrong too, since you're not repeating noun or verbs from one
>> sentence to another. I'd just drop any /and/ or /also;/ the English
>> doesn't use one. Maybe in prose it would be *jIlmaj chaH latlh law''e'.*
> Oh right, I keep treating tu'lu' as a fixed phrase without regard to
> the actual verb tu' it’s built around.
*tu'lu'* is fixed in that its prefix is often ignored and it has a
special meaning of /there is, there are,/ but otherwise it's just a
normal verb. When it's the main verb, you can't have another main verb.
> I like your suggestion (especially because rhyming “law''e'” with “je”
> instead of “tu'lu'” with “muchchoHlu'pu'” better matches the rhyme
> scheme of the Terran adaptation), but I would like another syllable or
> three; jIlma' chaH latlhpu' law''e'? (I’m not familiar with what rule
> allows 'e' on law' here; could you explain it please?)
When you link two nouns in a "to be" sentence, the final noun is the
topic and must have *-'e'* on it.
When you modify a noun with a verb of quality acting as an adjective,
any type 5 suffixes the noun might have get put on the verb instead.
*latlh'e'*/another (as topic)/ becomes *latlh law''e'*/many others (as
(Also, I just realized it should be *jIlma',* not *jIlmaj.* Sorry,
Combining these two rules:
*jIlma' chaH latlh'e'
*/Others are our neighbors./
*jIlma' chaH latlh law''e'
*/Many others are our neighbors./
> Okay, I really only added the qu' for meter here, not realizing that
> SuDqu' is a particular shade of SuD. I was just trying to say that the
> sky is very SuD, and the sea is SuD as well.
> In English the sky being blue and the sea being green is a contrast,
> but I think it more interesting for the Klingon version to point out
> the similarity of them being the same color, especially since it’s
> also the color of our submarine.
> I can fill that syllable with 'oH to avoid making SuDqu' and SuD, e.g.
> SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je,
> bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
> SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ'a',
> bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabba'!
You can't say *SuD 'oH chal;* you have to say *SuD chal.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol