[tlhIngan Hol] “Some nights ago” / julwIj wov SoHbej

[Rhona Fenwick]

ghunchu'wI' has already addressed some aspects of this, so I'll try not to double up too much.


ghItlhpu' Daniel, jatlh:

> While reconstructing the original Klingon lyrics to “You are my sunshine”, I wanted

> to express “some nights ago” as a time stamp.


Before addressing your recast, as ghunchu'wI' pointed out, the paq'batlh gives {'opleS} as a term for "someday [in the future]" (paq'yav 2.8, 2.11-12). As such, {'opHu'} "some day in the past" should work, and to specify "some night in the past", {'opHu' ram}.


jatlhtaH:

> What I came up with was “Hu' puS ram”. Does that make any sense?


For my part, I think {Hu' puS ram} works perfectly well for "a few nights ago"; it carries an implication of recency that {'opHu' ram} doesn't, but whether that's a problem or not is entirely up to you.


taH:

> julwIj wov SoHbej, latlh jul vIghajbe'.

> 'eng law' ghajDI' chal, choQuchqa'moH.

> bangwI' SoHbej, 'ach chaq not bISovlaH.

> julwIj wov yItlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob!


My only critique on the refrain would be on the last line; I don't think an imperative can be the complement of an {'e'} construction like this. Safer would be {julwIj wov DatlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob}. But otherwise, majQa'!


taH:

> Hu' puS ram bangwI', jIQongtaHvIS jIH,

> DeSDu'wIjDaq qa'uch 'e' vInaj.

> 'ach ghIq jIvemDI', jIQaghlaw'pu' jIH.

> nach vI'eSmoH 'ej jISaQchoH.


Purely stylistically, a comma between {Hu' puS ram} and {bangwI'} in the first line would help to clarify that the two aren't intended to be read as part of the same clause: {Hu' puS ram, bangwI'} "a few nights ago, my love". Elsewise, majQa'.


taH:

> reH qamuSHa' 'ej reH qaQuchqu'moH.

> jIHvaD 'e' Dajatlh je vIneHqu'.

> 'a jIH cholonchugh, 'ej latlh Danejchugh,

> 'opleS 'e' Dapay 'e' vIHarchu'.


While {nej} "look for" works okay here, for your meaning of "if you find another", {Sam} "find, locate" is better. Elsewise, this is all good too. I was wondering about the possibility of using {'e'} to refer back to a previous {-chugh} clause, but the paq'batlh also furnishes us an example of that: {pop Hevchugh quvwI' 'ej 'e' DaqaSmoHchugh} (paq'raD 16.26-27).


taH:

> chomuSHa'qu' 'e' wa'logh Daja'pu',

> not nuchev vay' 'e' Daja'pu' je.

> 'ach DaH cholonpu', latlh DamuSHa'qu',

> vaj Hoch vItulbogh Daghorpu'.


According to TKD, {'e'} as an object should come after {wa'logh} as an adverbial. The sole canon counterexample, as ghunchu'wI' points out, is problematic in other ways, though I suppose it at least allows an argument based on poetic licence.


taH:

> reH jInajtaHvIS, cholonqa'law' SoH.

> jIvemDI' 'oy'qu' tIqwIj Do'Ha'.

> naDev DacheghDI', choQuchqa'moHDI',

> Hoch jIqeHHa', 'ej chopIchlaHba'!


According to the rule of {rom}, here {jIqeHHa'} should be {vIqeHHa'} to agree with the object {Hoch}. I've noticed this in a couple of your subsequent translations too - be sure you keep your eye not only on subject-agreement, but also on object-agreement.


Overall, though, majQa'. I'm impressed. Have you considered having a poke at a rhyming translation?


QeS 'utlh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180612/5255f720/attachment-0002.htm>