The phrase “vengDaq jIboghpu'bogh” idly popped into my mind this morning and naturally it morphed into this. Please let me know about any unforgivable grammatical or lexical errors and I will do my best to correct them while preserving the flow of the song: vengHomDaq jIboghpu'bogh, bIQ'a' lengbogh loD tu'lu'. maHvaD yInDaj lut nuja', Daq bIQ Dujmey Hoch qaSpu'. vaj bIQDaq jul mave'taH, bIQ'a' SuD wISamDI' mamev. 'ej yu'egh bIngDaq maHtaH, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh… bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. naDev chaHtaH jupma' je, Sumqu' je latlhpu' tu'lu'. 'ej vogh QoQ muchchoHlu'pu'… [ QoQ muchlu'taH ] bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. [ tujqu'choH QuQ. ] [ nughoS jagh. ] [ chay' jura? ] [ batlh maHegh! ] [ cha yIghuS! ] [ So'wI' yIchu'Ha'! ] 'ej ngeDtaHvIS yInmeymaj, Hoch 'utbogh Dochmey wIghaj. SuDqu' chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh… bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. (If the lyrics don’t make it obvious, sing this to the tune of “Yellow Submarine” by the Beatles. The dialog taken from the beginning of “Conversational Klingon” is meant to take the place of the muffled speech heard before the final verse; if anybody ever ends up recording this, feel free to substitute other dialog, or cut out some lines to make it fit better, depending on the amount of time in the intervening measures between the chorus and verse.)
On 6/4/2018 10:26 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
The phrase “vengDaq jIboghpu'bogh” idly popped into my mind this morning and naturally it morphed into this. Please let me know about any unforgivable grammatical or lexical errors and I will do my best to correct them while preserving the flow of the song:
This is the old /ship in which I fled/ problem. The head noun of a relative clause MUST be either the subject or object of the clause. Without regard to meter or rhyme, /in the town where I was born/ would probably best be expressed as *boghpu'ghach vengwIj*/in my birth-town./
vengHomDaq jIboghpu'bogh, bIQ'a' lengbogh loD tu'lu'. maHvaD yInDaj lut nuja', Daq bIQ Dujmey Hoch qaSpu'.
I don't understand this line. I'd also note that a *bIQ Duj* is already used for a surface ship. I'm not sure how Klingons would refer to a submarine.
vaj bIQDaq jul mave'taH,
I think what you're going for is *vaj bIQDaq julDaq mave'*/So we travel on a mission in the water toward the sun./ The word *jul* needs some kind of reason for being there. I don't think you really want *-taH;* the line /So we sailed up to the sun / Till we found a sea of green/ isn't about the continuousness of the journey, going on before the time of this action and going on after the time of this action. It's just a statement of what the action was.
bIQ'a' SuD wISamDI' mamev.
I know you're concerned for meter and assonance, but this really needs to be *mamevpu',* and probably *wISampu'DI'.* You're talking about an action that is completed in the time in which the action happens.
'ej yu'egh bIngDaq maHtaH, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
Again, I recognize your poetic constraints, but in prose, and assuming we can use *bIQ qoD Duj* as /submarine,/ this would be simple as *'ej yu'egh bIngDaq bIQ qoD Duj SuD wIDab*/And we inhabit our *SuD* submarine beneath the waves./
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH,
Let's just drop the *Hoch, *okay? English has a special phrase /we all/ which syntactically means exactly the same thing as /we,/ but it includes a connotation of completeness, like there's no one left who isn't counted. Klingon doesn't have this. There's no evidence that Klingon say *Hoch maH* or *maH Hoch* or anything else to mean this, and grammatical analysis of this phrase doesn't lead to English /we all./ Grammatically, I'd be more inclined to use *Hochmaj*/our allness/ as a third-person noun before those. But that sounds silly too, even if it has the virtue of making grammatical sense. Or use a *-chu'* to indicate completeness.
DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
An interesting strategy to spread out the concepts where the English original just repeats phrases.
naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,
Poetry again. In prose this would be better as *'ej tIjpu' juppu'ma'*/And our friends have boarded./ This definitely needs to be an *'ej,* not a *je.*
Sumqu' je latlhpu' tu'lu'.
You've got two main verbs in this sentence; it doesn't work. The *je* is a bit wrong too, since you're not repeating noun or verbs from one sentence to another. I'd just drop any /and/ or /also;/ the English doesn't use one. Maybe in prose it would be *jIlmaj chaH latlh law''e'.*
'ej vogh QoQ muchchoHlu'pu'…
The *vogh* is there for a syllable?
[ QoQ muchlu'taH ]
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
[ tujqu'choH QuQ. ] [ nughoS jagh. ] [ chay' jura? ] [ batlh maHegh! ] [ cha yIghuS! ] [ So'wI' yIchu'Ha'! ]
chomonmoHpu'.
'ej ngeDtaHvIS yInmeymaj, Hoch 'utbogh Dochmey wIghaj.
*DIghaj*
SuDqu' chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je,
*SuDqu'* is green. I wouldn't use *je* here, since you're saying that one thing is *SuD* and the other is *SuDqu';* that's not an /also*.*//**/The song is making a contrast between two things by saying how they have different colors. In ordinary Klingon language, sky and sea have the same color, though they are different shades of that color. If you want to maintain the contrast, you have to talk about shades, in which case you definitely can't use *je.* I might change it up a bit and use *SuD chal 'ach SuDqu' bIQ*/The sky is *SuD* but the sea is very *SuD.*/
bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
(If the lyrics don’t make it obvious, sing this to the tune of “Yellow Submarine” by the Beatles. The dialog taken from the beginning of “Conversational Klingon” is meant to take the place of the muffled speech heard before the final verse; if anybody ever ends up recording this, feel free to substitute other dialog, or cut out some lines to make it fit better, depending on the amount of time in the intervening measures between the chorus and verse.)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thanks; this is very helpful! It’ll probably take me a while to figure out how best to apply your feedback, but I’ll try to post a revised version soon.
On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/4/2018 10:26 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote: The phrase “vengDaq jIboghpu'bogh” idly popped into my mind this morning and naturally it morphed into this. Please let me know about any unforgivable grammatical or lexical errors and I will do my best to correct them while preserving the flow of the song:
This is the old ship in which I fled problem. The head noun of a relative clause MUST be either the subject or object of the clause.
Without regard to meter or rhyme, in the town where I was born would probably best be expressed as boghpu'ghach vengwIj in my birth-town.
vengHomDaq jIboghpu'bogh, bIQ'a' lengbogh loD tu'lu'. maHvaD yInDaj lut nuja', Daq bIQ Dujmey Hoch qaSpu'.
I don't understand this line.
I'd also note that a bIQ Duj is already used for a surface ship. I'm not sure how Klingons would refer to a submarine.
vaj bIQDaq jul mave'taH,
I think what you're going for is vaj bIQDaq julDaq mave' So we travel on a mission in the water toward the sun. The word jul needs some kind of reason for being there. I don't think you really want -taH; the line So we sailed up to the sun / Till we found a sea of green isn't about the continuousness of the journey, going on before the time of this action and going on after the time of this action. It's just a statement of what the action was.
bIQ'a' SuD wISamDI' mamev.
I know you're concerned for meter and assonance, but this really needs to be mamevpu', and probably wISampu'DI'. You're talking about an action that is completed in the time in which the action happens.
'ej yu'egh bIngDaq maHtaH, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
Again, I recognize your poetic constraints, but in prose, and assuming we can use bIQ qoD Duj as submarine, this would be simple as 'ej yu'egh bIngDaq bIQ qoD Duj SuD wIDab And we inhabit our SuD submarine beneath the waves.
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH,
Let's just drop the Hoch, okay? English has a special phrase we all which syntactically means exactly the same thing as we, but it includes a connotation of completeness, like there's no one left who isn't counted. Klingon doesn't have this. There's no evidence that Klingon say Hoch maH or maH Hoch or anything else to mean this, and grammatical analysis of this phrase doesn't lead to English we all. Grammatically, I'd be more inclined to use Hochmaj our allness as a third-person noun before those. But that sounds silly too, even if it has the virtue of making grammatical sense. Or use a -chu' to indicate completeness.
DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
An interesting strategy to spread out the concepts where the English original just repeats phrases.
naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,
Poetry again. In prose this would be better as 'ej tIjpu' juppu'ma' And our friends have boarded. This definitely needs to be an 'ej, not a je.
Sumqu' je latlhpu' tu'lu'.
You've got two main verbs in this sentence; it doesn't work. The je is a bit wrong too, since you're not repeating noun or verbs from one sentence to another. I'd just drop any and or also; the English doesn't use one. Maybe in prose it would be jIlmaj chaH latlh law''e'.
'ej vogh QoQ muchchoHlu'pu'…
The vogh is there for a syllable?
[ QoQ muchlu'taH ]
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
[ tujqu'choH QuQ. ] [ nughoS jagh. ] [ chay' jura? ] [ batlh maHegh! ] [ cha yIghuS! ] [ So'wI' yIchu'Ha'! ]
chomonmoHpu'.
'ej ngeDtaHvIS yInmeymaj, Hoch 'utbogh Dochmey wIghaj.
DIghaj
SuDqu' chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je,
SuDqu' is green. I wouldn't use je here, since you're saying that one thing is SuD and the other is SuDqu'; that's not an also. The song is making a contrast between two things by saying how they have different colors. In ordinary Klingon language, sky and sea have the same color, though they are different shades of that color. If you want to maintain the contrast, you have to talk about shades, in which case you definitely can't use je.
I might change it up a bit and use SuD chal 'ach SuDqu' bIQ The sky is SuD but the sea is very SuD.
bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
(If the lyrics don’t make it obvious, sing this to the tune of “Yellow Submarine” by the Beatles. The dialog taken from the beginning of “Conversational Klingon” is meant to take the place of the muffled speech heard before the final verse; if anybody ever ends up recording this, feel free to substitute other dialog, or cut out some lines to make it fit better, depending on the amount of time in the intervening measures between the chorus and verse.)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
vengHomDaq jIboghpu'bogh, bIQ'a' lengbogh loD tu'lu'. maHvaD yInDaj lut nuja', Daq bIQ Dujmey Hoch qaSpu'.
I don't understand this line.
Which one, just the last one? The intended meaning here was: In the village where I was born, (Your feedback about “ship in which I fled” is acknowledged; I haven’t made any changes yet) There was a mad who traveled (to?) the ocean. He told us the story of his life, Everything happened in the place of water ships. Also, I know bIQ qoD Duj is probably a bit of a stretch for “submarine”, but it’s what I’m going with unless somebody has a clearer suggestion.
On 6/4/2018 11:38 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
vengHomDaq jIboghpu'bogh, bIQ'a' lengbogh loD tu'lu'. maHvaD yInDaj lut nuja', Daq bIQ Dujmey Hoch qaSpu'.
I don't understand this line.
Which one, just the last one?
The intended meaning here was:
In the village where I was born, (Your feedback about “ship in which I fled” is acknowledged; I haven’t made any changes yet) There was a mad who traveled (to?) the ocean. He told us the story of his life, Everything happened in the place of water ships.
*qaS* doesn't take an object. The thing that happens is the subject. You failed to include a locative marker to tell us /where/ this happened. When modifying one noun with another, the modifying noun comes first. It doesn't act like an adjectival verb, coming last. It's *bIQ Dujmey Daq*/place of water ships, water ships' place,/ not *Daq bIQ Dujmey.* *bIQ Dujmey DaqDaq qaSpu' Hoch */Everything happened in the place of water ships./ ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Okay, I think I know what to do, but I have some follow-up questions:
On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: On 6/4/2018 10:26 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote: The phrase “vengDaq jIboghpu'bogh” idly popped into my mind this morning and naturally it morphed into this. Please let me know about any unforgivable grammatical or lexical errors and I will do my best to correct them while preserving the flow of the song:
This is the old ship in which I fled problem. The head noun of a relative clause MUST be either the subject or object of the clause.
Without regard to meter or rhyme, in the town where I was born would probably best be expressed as boghpu'ghach vengwIj in my birth-town.
vengHomDaq jIboghpu'bogh, bIQ'a' lengbogh loD tu'lu'. maHvaD yInDaj lut nuja', Daq bIQ Dujmey Hoch qaSpu'.
qaS doesn't take an object. The thing that happens is the subject.
Oops, right.
You failed to include a locative marker to tell us where this happened.
HIvqa' veqlargh! I saw the “Daq” after I wrote it and forgot that I was using it as a noun.
When modifying one noun with another, the modifying noun comes first. It doesn't act like an adjectival verb, coming last. It's bIQ Dujmey Daqplace of water ships, water ships' place, not Daq bIQ Dujmey.
Yeah, there’s an analogous construction in Semitic languages that has the word order reversed compared to Klingon, and I’m always finding myself doing the noun-noun backwards. I’m mildly amused that I got it only half backwards this time (CAB instead of CBA or the correct ABC.)
bIQ Dujmey DaqDaq qaSpu' Hoch Everything happened in the place of water ships.
How about: mungwIj vengHom Dap loD qan, bIQ'a' lengchu'pu' ghaH net Sov. maHvaD yInDaj lut nuja', bIQ qoD Dujmey DaqDaq qaS Hoch.
vaj bIQDaq jul mave'taH,
I think what you're going for is vaj bIQDaq julDaq mave' So we travel on a mission in the water toward the sun. The word jul needs some kind of reason for being there.
So this is probably a very Indo-European-centric view, but I always read places with a locative marker as something like a “locative case” and places without one as an “accusative case”. 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'.
I don't think you really want -taH; the line So we sailed up to the sun / Till we found a sea of green isn't about the continuousness of the journey, going on before the time of this action and going on after the time of this action. It's just a statement of what the action was.
Sure, I mainly added -taH for rhythm and assonance; I can just as easily say mave' maH.
bIQ'a' SuD wISamDI' mamev.
I know you're concerned for meter and assonance, but this really needs to be mamevpu', and probably wISampu'DI'. You're talking about an action that is completed in the time in which the action happens.
Okay, I think I can squeeze the perfective suffixes in without too much awkwardness.
'ej yu'egh bIngDaq maHtaH, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
Again, I recognize your poetic constraints, but in prose, and assuming we can use bIQ qoD Duj as submarine, this would be simple as 'ej yu'egh bIngDaq bIQ qoD Duj SuD wIDab And we inhabit our SuD submarine beneath the waves.
Yeah, I’m not going for total fidelity here, as long as the imagery remains somewhat the same I’d prefer to err on the side of making it sound nice. Perhaps DujmajDaq maHegh is overly poetic (it does seem fairly Klingon), but in any case if we are adding a perfective suffix to mamev, it’ll need to change: (vaj?) bIQ('a'?)Daq jul(Daq? vaD?) mamev maH, bIQ SuD wISampu'DI' mamevpu'. 'ej yu'egh bIngDaq maHtaH, bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabchu'! (The words/affixes in parentheses may or may not appear in whatever combination is most grammatically and metrically favorable.)
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH,
Let's just drop the Hoch, okay? English has a special phrase we all which syntactically means exactly the same thing as we, but it includes a connotation of completeness, like there's no one left who isn't counted. Klingon doesn't have this. There's no evidence that Klingon say Hoch maH or maH Hoch or anything else to mean this, and grammatical analysis of this phrase doesn't lead to English we all. Grammatically, I'd be more inclined to use Hochmaj our allness as a third-person noun before those. But that sounds silly too, even if it has the virtue of making grammatical sense. Or use a -chu' to indicate completeness.
The Hoch was there more for meter than to try to communicate the “all” in “we all”. This works just as well for me metrically: bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabchu'taH maH
DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
An interesting strategy to spread out the concepts where the English original just repeats phrases.
English original? You must not have realized that I’m trying to reconstruct the original Klingon lyrics from the Terran adaptation made by a band whose name originated as a mispronunciation of “batlh”.
naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,
Poetry again. In prose this would be better as 'ej tIjpu' juppu'ma' And our friends have boarded. This definitely needs to be an 'ej, not a je.
The je is meant to communicate that we are here, and our friends are here too. Would it work better if I reverse the clauses in the last line of the chorus? ... bIQDaq majaHtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH. naDev chaHtaH jupma' je ...
Sumqu' je latlhpu' tu'lu'.
You've got two main verbs in this sentence; it doesn't work. The je is a bit wrong too, since you're not repeating noun or verbs from one sentence to another. I'd just drop any and or also; the English doesn't use one. Maybe in prose it would be jIlmaj chaH latlh law''e'.
Oh right, I keep treating tu'lu' as a fixed phrase without regard to the actual verb tu' it’s built around. 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?)
'ej vogh QoQ muchchoHlu'pu'…
The vogh is there for a syllable?
Yes, precisely. DaH or any other monosyllabic word would work just as well here if vogh is awkward.
[ QoQ muchlu'taH ]
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
[ tujqu'choH QuQ. ] [ nughoS jagh. ] [ chay' jura? ] [ batlh maHegh! ] [ cha yIghuS! ] [ So'wI' yIchu'Ha'! ]
chomonmoHpu'.
}}}:-) I realized that I forgot [ Qu'vatlh ] and [ baH ] here; with the addition of those two phrases, there are exactly enough phrases to use one per measure of the interlude.
'ej ngeDtaHvIS yInmeymaj, Hoch 'utbogh Dochmey wIghaj.
DIghaj
Grr, those verb prefixes will do me in one day; thanks for catching that.
SuDqu' chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je,
SuDqu' is green. I wouldn't use je here, since you're saying that one thing is SuD and the other is SuDqu'; that's not an also. The song is making a contrast between two things by saying how they have different colors. In ordinary Klingon language, sky and sea have the same color, though they are different shades of that color. If you want to maintain the contrast, you have to talk about shades, in which case you definitely can't use je.
I might change it up a bit and use SuD chal 'ach SuDqu' bIQ The sky is SuD but the sea is very SuD.
Okay, I really only added the qu' for meter here, not realizing that SuDqu' is a particular shade of SuD. I was just trying to say that the sky is very SuD, and the sea is SuD as well. In English the sky being blue and the sea being green is a contrast, but I think it more interesting for the Klingon version to point out the similarity of them being the same color, especially since it’s also the color of our submarine. I can fill that syllable with 'oH to avoid making SuDqu' and SuD, e.g. either: SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh… or: SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ'a', bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabba'! Anyway, let me know what you think of the above and I’ll put together an updated version.
bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
(If the lyrics don’t make it obvious, sing this to the tune of “Yellow Submarine” by the Beatles. The dialog taken from the beginning of “Conversational Klingon” is meant to take the place of the muffled speech heard before the final verse; if anybody ever ends up recording this, feel free to substitute other dialog, or cut out some lines to make it fit better, depending on the amount of time in the intervening measures between the chorus and verse.)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jun 4, 2018, at 18:51, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
Okay, I think I know what to do, but I have some follow-up questions:
On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/4/2018 10:26 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote: The phrase “vengDaq jIboghpu'bogh” idly popped into my mind this morning and naturally it morphed into this. Please let me know about any unforgivable grammatical or lexical errors and I will do my best to correct them while preserving the flow of the song:
This is the old ship in which I fled problem. The head noun of a relative clause MUST be either the subject or object of the clause.
Without regard to meter or rhyme, in the town where I was born would probably best be expressed as boghpu'ghach vengwIj in my birth-town.
vengHomDaq jIboghpu'bogh, bIQ'a' lengbogh loD tu'lu'. maHvaD yInDaj lut nuja', Daq bIQ Dujmey Hoch qaSpu'.
qaS doesn't take an object. The thing that happens is the subject.
Oops, right.
You failed to include a locative marker to tell us where this happened.
HIvqa' veqlargh! I saw the “Daq” after I wrote it and forgot that I was using it as a noun.
When modifying one noun with another, the modifying noun comes first. It doesn't act like an adjectival verb, coming last. It's bIQ Dujmey Daqplace of water ships, water ships' place, not Daq bIQ Dujmey.
Yeah, there’s an analogous construction in Semitic languages that has the word order reversed compared to Klingon, and I’m always finding myself doing the noun-noun backwards. I’m mildly amused that I got it only half backwards this time (CAB instead of CBA or the correct ABC.)
bIQ Dujmey DaqDaq qaSpu' Hoch Everything happened in the place of water ships.
How about:
mungwIj vengHom Dap loD qan, bIQ'a' lengchu'pu' ghaH net Sov. maHvaD yInDaj lut nuja', bIQ qoD Dujmey DaqDaq qaS Hoch.
vaj bIQDaq jul mave'taH,
I think what you're going for is vaj bIQDaq julDaq mave' So we travel on a mission in the water toward the sun. The word jul needs some kind of reason for being there.
So this is probably a very Indo-European-centric view, but I always read places with a locative marker as something like a “locative case” and places without one as an “accusative case”. 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'.
Oh, I think I know what I did wrong. I used a no object verb prefix. Does “vaj bIQ'a'Daq jul wIve' maH” make better sense here? (Or perhaps wIjaH instead of wIve' maH, since we have attested examples of jaH taking a direct object, at least according to boQwI'’s examples for the jaH entry.)
I don't think you really want -taH; the line So we sailed up to the sun / Till we found a sea of green isn't about the continuousness of the journey, going on before the time of this action and going on after the time of this action. It's just a statement of what the action was.
Sure, I mainly added -taH for rhythm and assonance; I can just as easily say mave' maH.
bIQ'a' SuD wISamDI' mamev.
I know you're concerned for meter and assonance, but this really needs to be mamevpu', and probably wISampu'DI'. You're talking about an action that is completed in the time in which the action happens.
Okay, I think I can squeeze the perfective suffixes in without too much awkwardness.
'ej yu'egh bIngDaq maHtaH, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
Again, I recognize your poetic constraints, but in prose, and assuming we can use bIQ qoD Duj as submarine, this would be simple as 'ej yu'egh bIngDaq bIQ qoD Duj SuD wIDab And we inhabit our SuD submarine beneath the waves.
Yeah, I’m not going for total fidelity here, as long as the imagery remains somewhat the same I’d prefer to err on the side of making it sound nice.
Perhaps DujmajDaq maHegh is overly poetic (it does seem fairly Klingon), but in any case if we are adding a perfective suffix to mamev, it’ll need to change:
(vaj?) bIQ('a'?)Daq jul(Daq? vaD?) mamev maH, bIQ SuD wISampu'DI' mamevpu'. 'ej yu'egh bIngDaq maHtaH, bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabchu'!
(The words/affixes in parentheses may or may not appear in whatever combination is most grammatically and metrically favorable.)
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH,
Let's just drop the Hoch, okay? English has a special phrase we all which syntactically means exactly the same thing as we, but it includes a connotation of completeness, like there's no one left who isn't counted. Klingon doesn't have this. There's no evidence that Klingon say Hoch maH or maH Hoch or anything else to mean this, and grammatical analysis of this phrase doesn't lead to English we all. Grammatically, I'd be more inclined to use Hochmaj our allness as a third-person noun before those. But that sounds silly too, even if it has the virtue of making grammatical sense. Or use a -chu' to indicate completeness.
The Hoch was there more for meter than to try to communicate the “all” in “we all”. This works just as well for me metrically:
bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabchu'taH maH
DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
An interesting strategy to spread out the concepts where the English original just repeats phrases.
English original? You must not have realized that I’m trying to reconstruct the original Klingon lyrics from the Terran adaptation made by a band whose name originated as a mispronunciation of “batlh”.
naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,
Poetry again. In prose this would be better as 'ej tIjpu' juppu'ma' And our friends have boarded. This definitely needs to be an 'ej, not a je.
The je is meant to communicate that we are here, and our friends are here too. Would it work better if I reverse the clauses in the last line of the chorus?
... bIQDaq majaHtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH.
naDev chaHtaH jupma' je ...
Sumqu' je latlhpu' tu'lu'.
You've got two main verbs in this sentence; it doesn't work. The je is a bit wrong too, since you're not repeating noun or verbs from one sentence to another. I'd just drop any and or also; the English doesn't use one. Maybe in prose it would be jIlmaj chaH latlh law''e'.
Oh right, I keep treating tu'lu' as a fixed phrase without regard to the actual verb tu' it’s built around.
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?)
'ej vogh QoQ muchchoHlu'pu'…
The vogh is there for a syllable?
Yes, precisely. DaH or any other monosyllabic word would work just as well here if vogh is awkward.
[ QoQ muchlu'taH ]
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
[ tujqu'choH QuQ. ] [ nughoS jagh. ] [ chay' jura? ] [ batlh maHegh! ] [ cha yIghuS! ] [ So'wI' yIchu'Ha'! ]
chomonmoHpu'.
}}}:-)
I realized that I forgot [ Qu'vatlh ] and [ baH ] here; with the addition of those two phrases, there are exactly enough phrases to use one per measure of the interlude.
'ej ngeDtaHvIS yInmeymaj, Hoch 'utbogh Dochmey wIghaj.
DIghaj
Grr, those verb prefixes will do me in one day; thanks for catching that.
SuDqu' chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je,
SuDqu' is green. I wouldn't use je here, since you're saying that one thing is SuD and the other is SuDqu'; that's not an also. The song is making a contrast between two things by saying how they have different colors. In ordinary Klingon language, sky and sea have the same color, though they are different shades of that color. If you want to maintain the contrast, you have to talk about shades, in which case you definitely can't use je.
I might change it up a bit and use SuD chal 'ach SuDqu' bIQ The sky is SuD but the sea is very SuD.
Okay, I really only added the qu' for meter here, not realizing that SuDqu' is a particular shade of SuD. I was just trying to say that the sky is very SuD, and the sea is SuD as well.
In English the sky being blue and the sea being green is a contrast, but I think it more interesting for the Klingon version to point out the similarity of them being the same color, especially since it’s also the color of our submarine.
I can fill that syllable with 'oH to avoid making SuDqu' and SuD, e.g. either:
SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
or:
SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ'a', bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabba'!
Anyway, let me know what you think of the above and I’ll put together an updated version.
bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH. bIQ qoD Duj SuD Hoch maH wIDabbejtaH, DujmajDaq maHtaH, bIQDaq majaHtaH.
(If the lyrics don’t make it obvious, sing this to the tune of “Yellow Submarine” by the Beatles. The dialog taken from the beginning of “Conversational Klingon” is meant to take the place of the muffled speech heard before the final verse; if anybody ever ends up recording this, feel free to substitute other dialog, or cut out some lines to make it fit better, depending on the amount of time in the intervening measures between the chorus and verse.)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/4/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
vaj bIQDaq jul mave'taH,
I think what you're going for is *vaj bIQDaq julDaq mave'*/So we travel on a mission in the water toward the sun./ The word *jul* needs some kind of reason for being there.
So this is probably a very Indo-European-centric view, but I always read places with a locative marker as something like a “locative case” and places without one as an “accusative case”.
You're right to read places, or any noun or noun phrase, with a locative marker as locative case. That's exactly what it is. However, Klingon does not have an accusative (or nominative) case; direct objects and subjects are determined purely by position. Oh, I think I know what I did wrong. I used a no object verb prefix. Does “vaj bIQ'a'Daq jul wIve' maH” make better sense here? (Or perhaps wIjaH instead of wIve' maH, since we have attested examples of jaH taking a direct object, at least according to boQwI'’s examples for the jaH entry.) That's right: we don't know if *ve'* can be used transitively. I rather believe that it doesn't. Use *wIjaH.*
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.
naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,
Poetry again. In prose this would be better as *'ej tIjpu' juppu'ma'*/And our friends have boarded./ This definitely needs to be an *'ej,* not a *je.*
The je is meant to communicate that we are here, and our friends are here too. Would it work better if I reverse the clauses in the last line of the chorus?
But you didn't SAY we are here, so there's nothing to /too/ about. You said we go, and you said we inhabit. The way I see it, this is purely an *'ej* situation. We go, we inhabit, and our friends are here.
Sumqu' je latlhpu' tu'lu'.
You've got two main verbs in this sentence; it doesn't work. The *je* is a bit wrong too, since you're not repeating noun or verbs from one sentence to another. I'd just drop any /and/ or /also;/ the English doesn't use one. Maybe in prose it would be *jIlmaj chaH latlh law''e'.*
Oh right, I keep treating tu'lu' as a fixed phrase without regard to the actual verb tu' it’s built around.
*tu'lu'* is fixed in that its prefix is often ignored and it has a special meaning of /there is, there are,/ but otherwise it's just a normal verb. When it's the main verb, you can't have another main verb.
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./
Okay, I really only added the qu' for meter here, not realizing that SuDqu' is a particular shade of SuD. I was just trying to say that the sky is very SuD, and the sea is SuD as well.
In English the sky being blue and the sea being green is a contrast, but I think it more interesting for the Klingon version to point out the similarity of them being the same color, especially since it’s also the color of our submarine.
I can fill that syllable with 'oH to avoid making SuDqu' and SuD, e.g. either:
SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
or:
SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ'a', bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabba'!
You can't say *SuD 'oH chal;* you have to say *SuD chal.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:30, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/4/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
vaj bIQDaq jul mave'taH,
I think what you're going for is vaj bIQDaq julDaq mave' So we travel on a mission in the water toward the sun. The word jul needs some kind of reason for being there.
So this is probably a very Indo-European-centric view, but I always read places with a locative marker as something like a “locative case” and places without one as an “accusative case”.
You're right to read places, or any noun or noun phrase, with a locative marker as locative case. That's exactly what it is. However, Klingon does not have an accusative (or nominative) case; direct objects and subjects are determined purely by position.
Right, I was using accusative for the direct object somewhat loosely, since Klingon lacks any sort of inflection for what we would call nominative and accusative.
Oh, I think I know what I did wrong. I used a no object verb prefix.
Does “vaj bIQ'a'Daq jul wIve' maH” make better sense here? (Or perhaps wIjaH instead of wIve' maH, since we have attested examples of jaH taking a direct object, at least according to boQwI'’s examples for the jaH entry.)
That's right: we don't know if ve' can be used transitively. I rather believe that it doesn't. Use wIjaH.
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.
naDev chaHtaH jupma' je,
Poetry again. In prose this would be better as 'ej tIjpu' juppu'ma' And our friends have boarded. This definitely needs to be an 'ej, not a je.
The je is meant to communicate that we are here, and our friends are here too. Would it work better if I reverse the clauses in the last line of the chorus?
But you didn't SAY we are here, so there's nothing to too about. You said we go, and you said we inhabit.
Right, that’s why I suggested reversing the order of the last two clauses in the refrain, so that “DujmajDaq maHtaH” immediately precedes “naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”, with DujmajDaq and naDev referring to the same place.
The way I see it, this is purely an 'ej situation. We go, we inhabit, and our friends are here.
Sumqu' je latlhpu' tu'lu'.
You've got two main verbs in this sentence; it doesn't work. The je is a bit wrong too, since you're not repeating noun or verbs from one sentence to another. I'd just drop any and or also; the English doesn't use one. Maybe in prose it would be jIlmaj chaH latlh law''e'.
Oh right, I keep treating tu'lu' as a fixed phrase without regard to the actual verb tu' it’s built around.
tu'lu' is fixed in that its prefix is often ignored and it has a special meaning of there is, there are, but otherwise it's just a normal verb. When it's the main verb, you can't have another main verb.
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.) Anyway, I think I can avoid problems with both lines by rewording as: naDev chaHtaH juppu'ma', 'ej jIlpu'ma' law'qu' tu'lu'ba' Or, if je is acceptable in “DujmajDaq maHtaH. naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”: naDev chaHtaH jupma' je, jIlpu'na'ma' chaH latlh law'e'.
Okay, I really only added the qu' for meter here, not realizing that SuDqu' is a particular shade of SuD. I was just trying to say that the sky is very SuD, and the sea is SuD as well.
In English the sky being blue and the sea being green is a contrast, but I think it more interesting for the Klingon version to point out the similarity of them being the same color, especially since it’s also the color of our submarine.
I can fill that syllable with 'oH to avoid making SuDqu' and SuD, e.g. either:
SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ je, bIQ qoD DujmajDaq maHegh…
or:
SuD 'oH chal, 'ej SuD bIQ'a', bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuD wIDabba'!
You can't say SuD 'oH chal; you have to say SuD chal.
Okay, that’s fine; I can just put bIQ'a' first and it fixes my meter problem: SuD bIQ'a', 'ej SuD chal je; bIQ qoD DujmajDaq SuD maHeghbej… Or perhaps: SuD bIQ'a', 'ej SuD chal je, 'ej SuDba' bIQ qoD Dujmaj'e'!
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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
On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:03, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/5/2018 10:24 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:30, SuStel <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.
Okay, ghoS is fine. I can preserve the rhyme with maHtaH by saying wIghoS maH, or just ignore the rhyme since the English version doesn’t have a rhyme on that line.
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.
Thanks; I had either never known that rule or had forgotten it. In that case I should also be saying e.g. “bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuDDaq” instead of “bIQ qoD DujmajDaq SuD”, qar'a'? What’s your opinion on “DujmajDaq maHtaH / naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”?
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/5/2018 11:47 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
Thanks; I had either never known that rule or had forgotten it. In that case I should also be saying e.g. “bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuDDaq” instead of “bIQ qoD DujmajDaq SuD”, qar'a'?
Yes.
What’s your opinion on “DujmajDaq maHtaH / naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”?
*naDev chaHtaH jupma''e'* needs that *-'e'.* It's required. Also, to be an adverbial, *je* needs to follow the verb, not the subject/topic noun. There is no verb here, but the pronoun is doing that job, so this has to be *naDev chaHtaH je jupma''e'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:56, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/5/2018 11:47 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote: Thanks; I had either never known that rule or had forgotten it. In that case I should also be saying e.g. “bIQ qoD Dujmaj SuDDaq” instead of “bIQ qoD DujmajDaq SuD”, qar'a'?
Yes.
What’s your opinion on “DujmajDaq maHtaH / naDev chaHtaH jupma' je”? naDev chaHtaH jupma''e' needs that -'e'. It's required.
Also, to be an adverbial, je needs to follow the verb, not the subject/topic noun. There is no verb here, but the pronoun is doing that job, so this has to be naDev chaHtaH je jupma''e'.
Oh, I just realized I could avoid this whole mess with: matay' maH, juppu'ma' je, jIlpu'na'ma' chaH latlh law''e'. Thanks again for all the grammar help. I clearly still have a lot to learn. }}}:-)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
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'} isn't a noun. When you have a stative verb being used adjectivially with a noun, if the noun has a type-5 suffix, the type-5 suffix gets put on the verb instead. {-'e'} is a type 5 suffix, so it gets moved from the noun {latlh} to the "adjective" {law'}. E.g. {qab Qe'} "The restaurant is bad", {Qe' qabDaq} "at the bad restaurant".
participants (3)
-
Daniel Dadap -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel