[tlhIngan Hol] bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD

[Daniel Dadap]

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:03, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/5/2018 10:24 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:30, SuStel <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.
> 
Okay, ghoS is fine. I can preserve the rhyme with maHtaH by saying wIghoS maH, or just ignore the rhyme since the English version doesn’t have a rhyme on that line.

> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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.

Thanks; I had either never known that rule or had forgotten it. In that case I should also be saying e.g. “bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuDDaq” instead of “bIQ qoD DujmajDaq SuD”, qar'a'?

What’s your opinion on “DujmajDaq maHtaH / naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”?

> -- 
> 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/20180605/968adb5e/attachment-0016.htm>