<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 10:03, 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 6/5/2018 10:24 AM, Daniel Dadap
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:23AC6DDC-B573-4880-A88F-F8E26ED57AD5@dadap.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:30, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" moz-do-not-send="true">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:</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Dunno about rhyme, but you might be better served with <b>'ej
bIQ'a'Daq jul wIghoS.</b> The word <b>ghoS</b> has more to do
with following a course than does the word <b>jaH,</b> which
seems to be purely about the motion.</p></div></blockquote><div>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.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:23AC6DDC-B573-4880-A88F-F8E26ED57AD5@dadap.net"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><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>
</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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<b>law'</b> 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.
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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'?</div><div><br></div><div>What’s your opinion on “DujmajDaq maHtaH / naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”?</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>