<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div><br></div><div><br>On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:30, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, I was using accusative for the direct object somewhat loosely, since Klingon lacks any sort of inflection for what we would call nominative and accusative.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, that’s why I suggested reversing the order of the last two clauses in the refrain, so that “DujmajDaq maHtaH” immediately precedes “naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”, with DujmajDaq and naDev referring to the same place.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.)</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, I think I can avoid problems with both lines by rewording as:</div><div><br></div><div>naDev chaHtaH juppu'ma',</div><div>'ej jIlpu'ma' law'qu' tu'lu'ba'</div><div><br></div><div>Or, if je is acceptable in “DujmajDaq maHtaH. naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”:</div><div><br></div><div>naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,</div><div>jIlpu'na'ma' chaH latlh law'e'.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Okay, that’s fine; I can just put bIQ'a' first and it fixes my meter problem:</div><div><br></div><div>SuD bIQ'a', 'ej SuD chal je;</div><div>bIQ qoD DujmajDaq SuD maHeghbej…</div><div><br></div><div>Or perhaps:</div><div><br></div><div>SuD bIQ'a', 'ej SuD chal je,</div><div>'ej SuDba' bIQ qoD Dujmaj'e'!</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>