[tlhIngan Hol] bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Tue Jun 5 08:03:44 PDT 2018


On 6/5/2018 10:24 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:30, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>> On 6/4/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

Dunno about rhyme, but you might be better served with *'ej bIQ'a'Daq 
jul wIghoS.* The word *ghoS* has more to do with following a course than 
does the word *jaH,* which seems to be purely about the motion.




>
>>
>>> 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.)

*law'* is a verb, not a noun. It's being used as a 
"stative-verb-as-adjective," as you say. It's just a special rule of 
adjectival verbs: when they modify a noun with a type 5 suffix, the 
suffix migrates to the end of the verb. See TKD 4.4.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180605/341c48e6/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list