<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/4/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel Dadap
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F5CAC5B-FF22-454E-AABE-A9CFA3A2E43B@dadap.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div><span></span></div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51D0E0CB-BE73-4101-8F3C-8686C0E32308@dadap.net">
<pre wrap="">vaj bIQDaq jul mave'taH,</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I think what you're going for is <b>vaj bIQDaq julDaq
mave'</b><i> So we travel on a mission in the water
toward the sun.</i> The word <b>jul</b> needs some
kind of reason for being there.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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”.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote>
<div>Oh, I think I know what I did wrong. I used a no object verb
prefix.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.)<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p>That's right: we don't know if <b>ve'</b> can be used
transitively. I rather believe that it doesn't. Use <b>wIjaH.</b><br>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F5CAC5B-FF22-454E-AABE-A9CFA3A2E43B@dadap.net">
<div>
<div>
<div> 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.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Would -vaD be a wrong suffix to distinguish the roles of
bIQ and jul in this sentence? e.g.: bIQDaq julvaD mave'.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It would be wrong. <b>julvaD</b> means you're traveling for the
sun's benefit, or you're giving something to the sun. The song
lyric literally means traveling <i>toward</i> the sun. That's <b>-Daq.</b></p>
<p>As for <i>on the sun in the water,</i> the only thing you can do
about that is reword. Klingon <b>-Daq</b> is a very general
locative, and usually doesn't let you distinguish between being
in, on, at, or by something.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F5CAC5B-FF22-454E-AABE-A9CFA3A2E43B@dadap.net">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote>naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51D0E0CB-BE73-4101-8F3C-8686C0E32308@dadap.net">
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Poetry again. In prose this would be better as <b>'ej
tIjpu' juppu'ma'</b><i> And our friends have boarded.</i>
This definitely needs to be an <b>'ej,</b> not a <b>je.</b></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>But you didn't SAY we are here, so there's nothing to <i>too</i>
about. You said we go, and you said we inhabit.</p>
<p>The way I see it, this is purely an <b>'ej</b> situation. We go,
we inhabit, and our friends are here.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F5CAC5B-FF22-454E-AABE-A9CFA3A2E43B@dadap.net">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51D0E0CB-BE73-4101-8F3C-8686C0E32308@dadap.net">
<pre wrap="">Sumqu' je latlhpu' tu'lu'.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>You've got two main verbs in this sentence; it doesn't
work. The <b>je</b> is a bit wrong too, since you're
not repeating noun or verbs from one sentence to
another. I'd just drop any <i>and</i> or <i>also;</i>
the English doesn't use one. Maybe in prose it would be
<b>jIlmaj chaH latlh law''e'.</b></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Oh right, I keep treating tu'lu' as a fixed phrase
without regard to the actual verb tu' it’s built around.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>tu'lu'</b> is fixed in that its prefix is often ignored and it
has a special meaning of <i>there is, there are,</i> but
otherwise it's just a normal verb. When it's the main verb, you
can't have another main verb.<br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F5CAC5B-FF22-454E-AABE-A9CFA3A2E43B@dadap.net">
<div>
<div>
<div>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?)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>When you link two nouns in a "to be" sentence, the final noun is
the topic and must have <b>-'e'</b> on it.</p>
<p>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. <b>latlh'e'</b><i> another (as topic)</i> becomes <b>latlh
law''e'</b><i> many others (as topic).</i></p>
<p>(Also, I just realized it should be <b>jIlma',</b> not <b>jIlmaj.</b>
Sorry, neighbor.)<br>
<i></i></p>
<p>Combining these two rules:</p>
<p><b>jIlma' chaH latlh'e'<br>
</b><i>Others are our neighbors.</i></p>
<p><b>jIlma' chaH latlh law''e'<br>
</b><i>Many others are our neighbors.</i><br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F5CAC5B-FF22-454E-AABE-A9CFA3A2E43B@dadap.net">
<div>
<div>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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I can fill that syllable with 'oH to avoid making SuDqu'
and SuD, e.g. either:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je,</div>
<div>bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>or:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ'a',</div>
<div>bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabba'!</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>You can't say <b>SuD 'oH chal;</b> you have to say <b>SuD chal.</b></p>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>