[tlhIngan Hol] bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD

Tue Jun 5 07:24:07 PDT 2018

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:30, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 

Right, I was using accusative for the direct object somewhat loosely, since Klingon lacks any sort of inflection for what we would call nominative and accusative.

> 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.
> 

Okay. I like “'ej bIQ'a'Daq jul wIjaH” as long as there’s nothing wrong with it grammatically. I realize the sun is not literally our final destination, but to me this communicates the sense of traveling towards it.

>> 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.
> 

Right, that’s why I suggested reversing the order of the last two clauses in the refrain, so that “DujmajDaq maHtaH” immediately precedes “naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”, with DujmajDaq and naDev referring to the same place.

> 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 topic).
> 
> (Also, I just realized it should be jIlma', not jIlmaj. Sorry, neighbor.)
> 
> Combining these two rules:
> 
> jIlma' chaH latlh'e'
> Others are our neighbors.
> 
> jIlma' chaH latlh law''e'
> Many others are our neighbors.
> 

Ahh, thanks for clarifying that. I hadn’t known that law' could be used as a noun, and was reading it as a stative-verb-as-adjective, and failing to understand how the topic marker could go on a verb.

I guess in that case it’s ungrammatical to say latlhpu' law''e'? Or maybe it’s okay, with latlhpu' law' being a noun-noun? (I want the extra syllable, but can probably do without it.)

Anyway, I think I can avoid problems with both lines by rewording as:

naDev chaHtaH juppu'ma',
'ej jIlpu'ma' law'qu' tu'lu'ba'

Or, if je is acceptable in “DujmajDaq maHtaH. naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”:

naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,
jIlpu'na'ma' chaH latlh law'e'.

> 
> 
>> 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. either:
>> 
>> SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je,
>> bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
>> 
>> or:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 

Okay, that’s fine; I can just put bIQ'a' first and it fixes my meter problem:

SuD bIQ'a', 'ej SuD chal je;
bIQ qoD DujmajDaq SuD maHeghbej…

Or perhaps:

SuD bIQ'a', 'ej SuD chal je,
'ej SuDba' bIQ qoD Dujmaj'e'!

> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180605/93ba6987/attachment.htm>