ghItlhpu' Daniel, jatlh:
Thanks, QeS 'utlh; this is very helpful.
qay'be'qu'. :) taH:
I can see how 'opHu' might refer to a large number of days ago.
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}. jIjatlhpu':
I don't think an imperative can be the complement of an {'e'} construction like this. Safer would be {julwIj wov DatlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob}. jangpu' Daniel, jatlh: Okay, qay'be', but if it’s no longer an imperative, should it be Datlhapbe' instead? I’m pleading that you do not remove my bright sun, not that you refuse to remove it.
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. jIjatlhpu':
According to TKD, {'e'} as an object should come after {wa'logh} as an adverbial. The sole canon counterexample, as ghunchu'wI' points out, is problematic in other ways, though I suppose it at least allows an argument based on poetic licence.
jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:
Do you mind sharing the counterexample, if it’s not too much trouble, and explaining how it’s problematic?
The relevant example is from S26: DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu' lurSa' be'etor je. "The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor, are constantly seeking a higher standing for the House of Duras within the Klingon High Council." 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. taH:
I think I can change this to: chomuSHa' wa'logh 'e' Daja'qangpu'
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'}. jIjatlhpu':
According to the rule of {rom}, here {jIqeHHa'} should be {vIqeHHa'} to agree with the object {Hoch}.
jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:
Indeed. I still struggle with DIp moHaq rom when it comes to objects. I noticed a wI- that should have been DI- in HovHom, HovHom. I’ll try to proofread better; thanks.
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. jIjatlhpu':
Overall, though, majQa'. I'm impressed. Have you considered having a poke at a rhyming translation?
jangpu' Daniel, jatlh:
Thank you very much, and I appreciate the feedback. I’m not certain what you mean by a rhyming translation: could you please elaborate?
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"). QeS 'utlh