[tlhIngan Hol] bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD

SuStel 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. 
> 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.*


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180605/78b208ff/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list