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

[Rhona Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' Daniel, jatlh:

> Thanks, QeS 'utlh; this is very helpful.

qay'be'qu'. :)


taH:

> I can see how 'opHu' might refer to a large number of days ago.


Indeed. {'opleS} in the paq'batlh translates "someday", and in principle this could be imminent, but it could also be distant as well. That said, I wouldn't have balked in the slightest at {'opHu' ram}.

jIjatlhpu':
> I don't think an imperative can be the complement of an {'e'} construction
> like this. Safer would be {julwIj wov DatlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob}.
jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:
> Okay, qay'be', but if it’s no longer an imperative, should it be Datlhapbe'
> instead? I’m pleading that you do not remove my bright sun, not that you
> refuse to remove it.

HIja'. Either meaning would in principle work here, and {-Qo'} doesn't need to accompany an imperative ({lajQo'} is the canonical rendition of "reject"), but {-be'} is definitely more appropriate.

jIjatlhpu':
> 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.

jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:
> Do you mind sharing the counterexample, if it’s not too much trouble,
> and explaining how it’s problematic?

The relevant example is from S26:

DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu'
lurSa' be'etor je.
"The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor, are constantly seeking
a higher standing for the House of Duras within the Klingon High Council."

The relevant part of the clause is {'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu'}, and the problematic aspect of it is that not only does the adverb follow the object {'e'}, but a verb governing {'e'} should also not take Type 7 suffixes.

taH:
> I think I can change this to:
> chomuSHa' wa'logh 'e' Daja'qangpu'

And here we run into the other problem from the very same SkyBox example. TKD section 6.2.5 notes that Type 7 suffixes are not possible on a main verb governing {'e'}.

jIjatlhpu':
> According to the rule of {rom}, here {jIqeHHa'} should be {vIqeHHa'} to
> agree with the object {Hoch}.

jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:
> Indeed. I still struggle with DIp moHaq rom when it comes to objects. I
> noticed a wI- that should have been DI- in HovHom, HovHom. I’ll try to
> proofread better; thanks.

qay'be'qu'. And don't take it too much to heart. Using {wI-} in place of {DI-} in particular is a mistake that even highly experienced Klingonists still make from time to time.

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

jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:
> Thank you very much, and I appreciate the feedback. I’m not certain
> what you mean by a rhyming translation: could you please elaborate?

Ah, that's my mistake. I was suggesting you have a shot at developing your Klingon rendition into a rhyming one following the original song, but I've never heard the full English lyrics, and was presuming from the chorus (whose lyrics I do know) that the second and fourth lines of each verse rhymed too. But although the second and third verses do have slant rhymes in this position ("same"/"day", "between"/"my dreams"), the first verse apparently has no rhyme at all ("arms"/"cried").

QeS 'utlh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180613/b2396f22/attachment-0016.htm>