<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, "EmojiFont", "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols;" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">ghItlhpu' Daniel, jatlh:<br>
</p>
<div>> Thanks, QeS 'utlh; this is very helpful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>qay'be'qu'. :)<br>
</div>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">taH:</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">> I can see how 'opHu' might refer to a large number of days ago.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">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}.<br>
</p>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">jIjatlhpu':</div>
<div dir="auto">> <span style="font-size:12pt">I don't think an imperative can be the complement of an {'e'} construction</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:12pt">> like this. Safer would be </span><span style="font-size:12pt">{julwIj wov DatlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob}. </span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,"EmojiFont","Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji",NotoColorEmoji,"Segoe UI Symbol","Android Emoji",EmojiSymbols">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:<br>
</div>
<div>> Okay, qay'be', but if it’s no longer an imperative, should it be Datlhapbe'</div>
<div>> instead? I’m pleading that you do not remove my bright sun, not that you</div>
<div>> refuse to remove it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
jIjatlhpu':</div>
<div dir="auto">> According to TKD, {'e'} as an object should come after {wa'logh} as an</div>
<div dir="auto">> adverbial. The sole canon counterexample, as ghunchu'wI' points out,</div>
<div dir="auto">> is problematic in other ways, though I suppose it at least allows an</div>
<div dir="auto">> argument based on poetic licence.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">> Do you mind sharing the counterexample, if it’s not too much trouble,</div>
<div dir="auto">> and explaining how it’s problematic?<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The relevant example is from S26:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div>DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu'</div>
<div>lurSa' be'etor je.</div>
<div><span>"The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor, are constantly seeking</span></div>
<div><span>a higher standing for the House of Duras within the Klingon High Council."</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>taH: <br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto">> I think I can change this to:
<div>> chomuSHa' wa'logh 'e' Daja'qangpu'</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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'}.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>jIjatlhpu':<br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:12pt">> According to the rule of {rom}, here {jIqeHHa'} should be {vIqeHHa'} to</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:12pt">> agree with the object {Hoch}.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:12pt">jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:12pt">> </span>Indeed. I still struggle with DIp moHaq rom when it comes to objects.
<span>I</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span>> noticed a wI- that should have been DI- in HovHom, HovHom. I’ll try to</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span>> proofread better; thanks.</span><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">jIjatlhpu':</div>
<div dir="auto">> Overall, though, majQa'. I'm impressed. Have you considered having a</div>
<div dir="auto">> poke at a rhyming translation?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:</div>
<div dir="auto">> Thank you very much, and I appreciate the feedback. I’m not certain</div>
<div dir="auto">> what you mean by a rhyming translation: could you please elaborate?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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").</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">QeS 'utlh<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>