On 6/5/2018 10:24 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:30, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> 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