I’m suspecting you are missing something even more fundamental here than language. There’s a cultural association here about “light” and “darkness” that may not be directly translatable using words in Klingon that refer to the presence or absence of light. Klingons may simply use these words for the stuff our eyes use to form images. It may have nothing to do with goodness and evil, which is clearly your intent. This association between light and goodness and dark and evil may very well not be universal.

But he may not be writing or translating with the intent of conveying the idea to Klingons. mayqel was, for example, just writing poetry about a character from the fiction of Tolkien, in which light and darkness are very much associated with good and evil, respectively. In the world of Tolkien, darkness is a tool of the Enemy. It has become a thing of fear and danger, and only the elves remember a time when the darkness was natural and good.

Assume for a moment that Klingons don't have the same light/darkness symbolism. If mayqel were writing for Klingons it would be entirely appropriate — even necessary — to keep the symbolism. If he were writing for Klingons, this aspect of the fiction of Tolkien would simply be culturally incomprehensible, and no translation would be adequate.

I am reminded of the famous story of the anthropologists who worked with certain African tribes, telling the story of Hamlet to them. To this tribe, there was no such thing as a ghost, a chief should have many wives, only someone of your own age cohort has a right to enact revenge. The tribe's elders listened to the story, then proceeded to tell the anthropologist why she misinterpreted the meaning of the story, and what it really meant.

Nick had the same problem in translating Hamlet, and his solution was to write his own cultural interpretation of the play to match whatever he wanted. One doesn't usually have this luxury.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name