“Some nights ago” / julwIj wov SoHbej
(At this rate I might just keep doing these reconstructions and publish a collection of reconstructed children’s songs) While reconstructing the original Klingon lyrics to “You are my sunshine”, I wanted to express “some nights ago” as a time stamp. What I came up with was “Hu' puS ram”. Does that make any sense? (If not, in this particular case I think I could just make it an explicit “cha'Hu' ram”, which I think is a possible literal interpretation of “the other night”. Anyway, here’s another reconstruction: I usually only hear the refrain and first verse of the Terran version, and I hadn’t realized how very sad this song is (which is probably why the other verses are usually omitted.) mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh: julwIj wov SoHbej, latlh jul vIghajbe'. 'eng law' ghajDI' chal, choQuchqa'moH. bangwI' SoHbej, 'ach chaq not bISovlaH. julwIj wov yItlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob! Refrain (“words which are sung again”): You are certainly my bright sun, I do not have another sun. When the sky has many clouds, you make me happy again. You are certainly my loved one, but perhaps you will never be able to know. I beg that you do not take my bright sun! Hu' puS ram bangwI', jIQongtaHvIS jIH, DeSDu'wIjDaq qa'uch 'e' vInaj. 'ach ghIq jIvemDI', jIQaghlaw'pu' jIH. nach vI'eSmoH 'ej jISaQchoH. Some nights ago, my love, while I was sleeping, I dreamt that I held you in my arms. But then when I awoke, I had apparently been mistaken. I lowered my head and began to cry. (mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh pebomqa') (Sing Refrain again) reH qamuSHa' 'ej reH qaQuchqu'moH. jIHvaD 'e' Dajatlh je vIneHqu'. 'a jIH cholonchugh, 'ej latlh Danejchugh, 'opleS 'e' Dapay 'e' vIHarchu'. I will always love you and I will always make you very happy. I want very much that you say that to me as well. But if you abandon me, and if you find another, I perfectly believe that someday you will regret that. (mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh pebomqa') (Sing refrain again) chomuSHa'qu' 'e' wa'logh Daja'pu', not nuchev vay' 'e' Daja'pu' je. 'ach DaH cholonpu', latlh DamuSHa'qu', vaj Hoch vItulbogh Daghorpu'. You had said once that you love me very much, You had also said that someone would never separate us. But now you have abandoned me, you love another very much, So you have broken everything that I hope for. (mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh pebomqa') (Sing refrain again) reH jInajtaHvIS, cholonqa'law' SoH. jIvemDI' 'oy'qu' tIqwIj Do'Ha'. naDev DacheghDI', choQuchqa'moHDI', Hoch jIqeHHa', 'ej chopIchlaHba'! Always while I am dreaming, you seem to abandon me again. When I wake up my unfortunate heart hurts very much. When you come back here, when you make me happy again, I will forgive everything, and you can obviously blame me! (mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh pebomqa') (Sing refrain again)
Oh, another question that came up while doing this one: what grammatical gender does something not capable of language take when one wants to express that a being capable of language is metaphorically that thing? For example, to say “you are my sun”, should it be julwIj SoH, or julwI' SoH?
On Jun 9, 2018, at 08:29, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
(At this rate I might just keep doing these reconstructions and publish a collection of reconstructed children’s songs)
While reconstructing the original Klingon lyrics to “You are my sunshine”, I wanted to express “some nights ago” as a time stamp. What I came up with was “Hu' puS ram”. Does that make any sense? (If not, in this particular case I think I could just make it an explicit “cha'Hu' ram”, which I think is a possible literal interpretation of “the other night”.
Anyway, here’s another reconstruction: I usually only hear the refrain and first verse of the Terran version, and I hadn’t realized how very sad this song is (which is probably why the other verses are usually omitted.)
mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh: julwIj wov SoHbej, latlh jul vIghajbe'. 'eng law' ghajDI' chal, choQuchqa'moH. bangwI' SoHbej, 'ach chaq not bISovlaH. julwIj wov yItlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob!
Refrain (“words which are sung again”): You are certainly my bright sun, I do not have another sun. When the sky has many clouds, you make me happy again. You are certainly my loved one, but perhaps you will never be able to know. I beg that you do not take my bright sun!
Hu' puS ram bangwI', jIQongtaHvIS jIH, DeSDu'wIjDaq qa'uch 'e' vInaj. 'ach ghIq jIvemDI', jIQaghlaw'pu' jIH. nach vI'eSmoH 'ej jISaQchoH.
Some nights ago, my love, while I was sleeping, I dreamt that I held you in my arms. But then when I awoke, I had apparently been mistaken. I lowered my head and began to cry.
(mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh pebomqa')
(Sing Refrain again)
reH qamuSHa' 'ej reH qaQuchqu'moH. jIHvaD 'e' Dajatlh je vIneHqu'. 'a jIH cholonchugh, 'ej latlh Danejchugh, 'opleS 'e' Dapay 'e' vIHarchu'.
I will always love you and I will always make you very happy. I want very much that you say that to me as well. But if you abandon me, and if you find another, I perfectly believe that someday you will regret that.
(mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh pebomqa')
(Sing refrain again)
chomuSHa'qu' 'e' wa'logh Daja'pu', not nuchev vay' 'e' Daja'pu' je. 'ach DaH cholonpu', latlh DamuSHa'qu', vaj Hoch vItulbogh Daghorpu'.
You had said once that you love me very much, You had also said that someone would never separate us. But now you have abandoned me, you love another very much, So you have broken everything that I hope for.
(mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh pebomqa')
(Sing refrain again)
reH jInajtaHvIS, cholonqa'law' SoH. jIvemDI' 'oy'qu' tIqwIj Do'Ha'. naDev DacheghDI', choQuchqa'moHDI', Hoch jIqeHHa', 'ej chopIchlaHba'!
Always while I am dreaming, you seem to abandon me again. When I wake up my unfortunate heart hurts very much. When you come back here, when you make me happy again, I will forgive everything, and you can obviously blame me!
(mu'mey bomqa'lu'bogh pebomqa')
(Sing refrain again)
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
Oh, another question that came up while doing this one: what grammatical gender does something not capable of language take when one wants to express that a being capable of language is metaphorically that thing? For example, to say “you are my sun”, should it be julwIj SoH, or julwI' SoH?
Canon is not consistent enough to provide a firm rule, but the handles called *DeSqIvDu'* *elbows* on a *nevDagh* cooking pot get the "body part" plural. I tend to go with the idea that the word itself usually provides the category, and here I would say *julwIj*. You're not actually referring to a speech-capable sun, so I don't think using the non-speech-capable possessive carries a derogatory implication. -- ghunchu'wI'
I agree with ghunchu’wI’: ?julwIj is probably okay. But using an inanimate possessive suffix on an inherently speech-capable noun is not: (TKD 25): It is grammatically correct to use the regular possessive suffixes with nouns referring to beings capable of speech (as in puqlIj your child), but such constructions are considered derogatory; joHwIj for my lord borders on taboo. (KGT 190): Addressing my Lord or my Lady as joHwIj rather than joHwI' is insulting indeed, since it implies that my Lord or my Lady is a lower order of being. Similarly, a group of heads of households would probably not appreciate being referred to as joHDu', since that would be the appropriate way to say Lords or Ladies only if they were body parts. The only thing worse would be combining mispronunciation with grammatical blundering, such as by saying joQDu'wIj (my ribs) ... when joHpu'wI' (my Lords, my Ladies) is intended. Mistakes of this kind are simply not tolerated and there are no recorded instances of anyone living long enough to repeat the offense. Two more examples like DeSqIvDu' : (KGT 80): The ends [of a pigment stick] (sometimes referred to as the nItlhpachDu' [literally, fingernails]) (KGT 152): Grammatically, even as slang, Ho' follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Thus, even though it may refer to a person, its plural is Ho'Du' (teeth), making use of the plural suffix for body parts (-Du'), not Ho'pu', with -pu', the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Also jIb Ho'Du' comb (literally hair teeth) from TalkNow! --Voragh On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net<mailto:daniel@dadap.net>> wrote: Oh, another question that came up while doing this one: what grammatical gender does something not capable of language take when one wants to express that a being capable of language is metaphorically that thing? For example, to say “you are my sun”, should it be julwIj SoH, or julwI' SoH? From: Alan Anderson Canon is not consistent enough to provide a firm rule, but the handles called DeSqIvDu' elbows on a nevDagh cooking pot get the "body part" plural. I tend to go with the idea that the word itself usually provides the category, and here I would say julwIj. You're not actually referring to a speech-capable sun, so I don't think using the non-speech-capable possessive carries a derogatory implication. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
While reconstructing the original Klingon lyrics to “You are my sunshine”, I wanted to express “some nights ago” as a time stamp. What I came up with was “Hu' puS ram”. Does that make any sense? (If not, in this particular case I think I could just make it an explicit “cha'Hu' ram”, which I think is a possible literal interpretation of “the other night”.
In the paq'batlh: *qeylIS loDnI' 'opleS chovan* *One day, brother Kahless, you will bow before me.* Following the example of *'opleS*, I would expect *'opHu'* to be appropriate for *some days ago*. -- ghunchu'wI'
ghunchu'wI' has already addressed some aspects of this, so I'll try not to double up too much. ghItlhpu' Daniel, jatlh:
While reconstructing the original Klingon lyrics to “You are my sunshine”, I wanted
to express “some nights ago” as a time stamp.
Before addressing your recast, as ghunchu'wI' pointed out, the paq'batlh gives {'opleS} as a term for "someday [in the future]" (paq'yav 2.8, 2.11-12). As such, {'opHu'} "some day in the past" should work, and to specify "some night in the past", {'opHu' ram}. jatlhtaH:
What I came up with was “Hu' puS ram”. Does that make any sense?
For my part, I think {Hu' puS ram} works perfectly well for "a few nights ago"; it carries an implication of recency that {'opHu' ram} doesn't, but whether that's a problem or not is entirely up to you. taH:
julwIj wov SoHbej, latlh jul vIghajbe'.
'eng law' ghajDI' chal, choQuchqa'moH.
bangwI' SoHbej, 'ach chaq not bISovlaH.
julwIj wov yItlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob!
My only critique on the refrain would be on the last line; I don't think an imperative can be the complement of an {'e'} construction like this. Safer would be {julwIj wov DatlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob}. But otherwise, majQa'! taH:
Hu' puS ram bangwI', jIQongtaHvIS jIH,
DeSDu'wIjDaq qa'uch 'e' vInaj.
'ach ghIq jIvemDI', jIQaghlaw'pu' jIH.
nach vI'eSmoH 'ej jISaQchoH.
Purely stylistically, a comma between {Hu' puS ram} and {bangwI'} in the first line would help to clarify that the two aren't intended to be read as part of the same clause: {Hu' puS ram, bangwI'} "a few nights ago, my love". Elsewise, majQa'. taH:
reH qamuSHa' 'ej reH qaQuchqu'moH.
jIHvaD 'e' Dajatlh je vIneHqu'.
'a jIH cholonchugh, 'ej latlh Danejchugh,
'opleS 'e' Dapay 'e' vIHarchu'.
While {nej} "look for" works okay here, for your meaning of "if you find another", {Sam} "find, locate" is better. Elsewise, this is all good too. I was wondering about the possibility of using {'e'} to refer back to a previous {-chugh} clause, but the paq'batlh also furnishes us an example of that: {pop Hevchugh quvwI' 'ej 'e' DaqaSmoHchugh} (paq'raD 16.26-27). taH:
chomuSHa'qu' 'e' wa'logh Daja'pu',
not nuchev vay' 'e' Daja'pu' je.
'ach DaH cholonpu', latlh DamuSHa'qu',
vaj Hoch vItulbogh Daghorpu'.
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. taH:
reH jInajtaHvIS, cholonqa'law' SoH.
jIvemDI' 'oy'qu' tIqwIj Do'Ha'.
naDev DacheghDI', choQuchqa'moHDI',
Hoch jIqeHHa', 'ej chopIchlaHba'!
According to the rule of {rom}, here {jIqeHHa'} should be {vIqeHHa'} to agree with the object {Hoch}. I've noticed this in a couple of your subsequent translations too - be sure you keep your eye not only on subject-agreement, but also on object-agreement. Overall, though, majQa'. I'm impressed. Have you considered having a poke at a rhyming translation? QeS 'utlh
Thanks, QeS 'utlh; this is very helpful. I have a few questions/comments:
On Jun 12, 2018, at 00:07, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
For my part, I think {Hu' puS ram} works perfectly well for "a few nights ago"; it carries an implication of recency that {'opHu' ram} doesn't, but whether that's a problem or not is entirely up to you.
Okay, cool. I had already changed it to 'opHu' ram based on ghunchu'wI'’s suggestion, but since recency is part of my intended meaning, I think I’ll go back to Hu' puS ram, as long as it doesn’t break any rules, and is easily understood. I can see how 'opHu' might refer to a large number of days ago.
I don't think an imperative can be the complement of an {'e'} construction like this. Safer would be {julwIj wov DatlhapQo' 'e' vItlhob}.
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.
While {nej} "look for" works okay here, for your meaning of "if you find another", {Sam} "find, locate" is better.
Thank you again. You are right, I did mean Sam here. I get those two mixed up still, and usually I use the qeylIS prayer from Discovery to sort them out; I must not have done that this time.
chomuSHa'qu' 'e' wa'logh Daja'pu',
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.
Do you mind sharing the counterexample, if it’s not too much trouble, and explaining how it’s problematic? I think I can change this to: chomuSHa' wa'logh 'e' Daja'qangpu' The shift in meaning departs a bit from the Terran version, but this relationship seems pretty asymmetrical, and it’s consistent with that.
According to the rule of {rom}, here {jIqeHHa'} should be {vIqeHHa'} to agree with the object {Hoch}. I've noticed this in a couple of your subsequent translations too - be sure you keep your eye not only on subject-agreement, but also on object-agreement.
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.
Overall, though, majQa'. I'm impressed. Have you considered having a poke at a rhyming translation?
Thank you very much, and I appreciate the feedback. I’m not certain what you mean by a rhyming translation: could you please elaborate?
QeS 'utlh _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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
On Jun 13, 2018, at 02:00, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
Okay, thanks for sharing that. I’m willing to look past the the rules about word order and allowed suffixes being broken, since it doesn’t seem to affect the meaning. I see now that “problematic” refers to breaking established rules rather than being unclear in how to interpret the meaning. Nevertheless, I see no need to break those rules myself and hold up S26 (which I now understand to mean Skybox card number 26, I saw a lot of S# citations and didn’t understand what they were) as justification.
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'}.
Okay, now that I know that rule, I think I can just rephrase as a direct quotation: wa'logh choja'pu', “bang, qamuSHa'qu'” jIHvaD “not nuchev vay'” Daja' je. My concern would be that I’m uncertain how clear the quotation aspect would come across in spoken/sung form, without punctuation.
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.
Believe me when I say that I’m far from the point where I will take any criticism of my use of Klingon personally. :)
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").
Oh, I didn’t realize you were referring to this very work. I thought perhaps there was some pool of texts that was wanting for rhyming translations that you were suggesting I could take a crack at.
QeS 'utlh _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
Rhona Fenwick -
Steven Boozer