On 6/5/2018 10:24 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On 6/4/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
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.)
Would -vaD be a wrong suffix to distinguish the roles of bIQ and jul in this sentence? e.g.: bIQDaq julvaD mave'.
It would be wrong. julvaD means you're traveling for the sun's benefit, or you're giving something to the sun. The song lyric literally means traveling toward the sun. That's -Daq.
As for on the sun in the water, the only thing you can do about that is reword. Klingon -Daq is a very general locative, and usually doesn't let you distinguish between being in, on, at, or by something.
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.
Dunno about rhyme, but you might be better served with 'ej bIQ'a'Daq jul wIghoS. The word ghoS has more to do with following a course than does the word jaH, which seems to be purely about the motion.
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?)
When you link two nouns in a "to be" sentence, the final noun is the topic and must have -'e' on it.
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. latlh'e' another (as topic) becomes latlh law''e' many others (as topic).
(Also, I just realized it should be jIlma', not jIlmaj. Sorry, neighbor.)
Combining these two rules:
jIlma' chaH latlh'e'
Others are our neighbors.jIlma' chaH latlh law''e'
Many others are our neighbors.
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.
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.)
law' 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.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org