I’ve always thought of {Sep} as being a named location with established boundaries. {Daq’a’} implies that it is a location of special significance. That doesn’t necessarily imply size. Big things tend to be significant, so there is a loose association, but that’s not the main part of what {-‘a’} implies.

On Nov 13, 2021, at 7:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you SuStel and De'vID for taking the time to reply. Comments on specific parts of your posts follow.

jIH:

...

Could we use the {Daq} SuStel: I'd use Daq if the location is fairly small, like "in that harbor,"

Ok, thanks; good to know.

The thing which led me to wonder about whether {Daq} would be an appropriate choice, was my being influenced from the {chenmoHlu'meH Daq} "construction site"; I don't know why, but because of it, I thought that a {Daq} could only be a location on land.

De'vID:

...

KGT tells us that a {Sep} is a "region" in the sense of a "specific area whose borders are definable" and that these "regions" were politically distinct in the past, and "country" might've been an appropriate translation when this was the case.

While I was writing the first post of this thread, this definition of {Sep} came to my mind.

But then I thought, that perhaps the "country" meaning of {Sep} isn't "binding", meaning that perhaps we could use {Sep} too in order to describe any kind of region/territory, whether it would be on the land, or at the sea. And it was that in order to avoid the (possible) obstacle of the kgt definition, I thought of using {SepHom}.

Then the thought came to mind to say {Daq'a'}; but then a little bird informed me of the Star Trek 2009 deleted scene. There we have {tlhIngan wo' Daq'a' bo'elpu'} for "you have entered the jurisdiction of the Klingon Empire". If the English translation came from the hand of god himself, thus making it Ca'Non, then obviously we have {Daq'a'} (n) "jurisdiction", and the option of using the {Daq'a'} for a purpose as the one of the original example goes out the window.

Anyways, in case that the kgt definition of {Sep} is indeed binding, perhaps we could play with {Daq}, adjectives as {tIn}/{vaS}, and the {-qu'}/{-chu'} suffixes to express meanings as in the original example.

-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 at 13:06, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Then the thought came to mind to say {Daq'a'}; but then a little bird informed me of the Star Trek 2009 deleted scene. There we have {tlhIngan wo' Daq'a' bo'elpu'} for "you have entered the jurisdiction of the Klingon Empire". If the English translation came from the hand of god himself, thus making it Ca'Non, then obviously we have {Daq'a'} (n) "jurisdiction", and the option of using the {Daq'a'} for a purpose as the one of the original example goes out the window.

You have the direction of translation backwards. The English sentence is not the translation: it's the original wording in the shooting script (plus whatever changes the director or others might have made prior to shooting the scene). It didn't come from Okrand, but from others involved in writing the dialogue. Okrand translated the English "you have entered the jurisdiction of the Klingon Empire" *into* Klingon as {tlhIngan wo' Daq'a' bo'elpu'}. Now, imagine the {-'a'} wasn't there: {tlhIngan wo' Daq bo'elpu'}. This sentence means "you have entered a site/location of the Klingon Empire". That already gets the idea across of entering the Klingon Empire's jurisdiction. The suffix {-'a'} indicates that the noun to which it is attached is bigger, more important, or more powerful than without the suffix. I think here it's turning {Daq} "site, location" into something larger and more important, maybe a "territory/area" (in the sense of a large location). The sense that it's the "Klingon Empire's jurisdiction" comes from the genitive N1-N2 construction: {tlhIngan wo' Daq'a'}. I think {bIQ'a' Daq'a'mey} would be fine for "areas (larger locations) in the ocean". -- De'vID

Thanks for the note mayqel/Dana'an. I just added it to my notes. You never know when it may come in useful. qatlho', Voragh ------------------------------Original Message------------------------------ From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of mayqel qunen'oS I don't know whether this is something relevant to this thread, but I'm posting this here, in case voragh would like to add this to his records. On November 13 2019, I started a thread with the title "how would you understand {'eladya' DaqDaq} ?" There, I asked on the initial post: ***** Initial post's start ***** Suppose I write: {'elaDya' SepDaq vIghro'mey tIQ tu'lu'}. This would mean: "there are ancient cats at the region of greece". Now, suppose I write: {'elaDya' DaqDaq vIghro'mey tIQ tu'lu'} The way I understand it, this would mean "there are ancient cats at the site/location of greece". And the only difference I "feel", is that perhaps this sentence focuses more on the "location". However, since I'm not a native english speaker, I wonder: Meaning-wise, what's the actual difference between this and the first sentence ? Do you, as native american speakers, "feel" any difference between these two sentences ? ***** Initial post's end ***** Later in that thread, Lieven informed on the thoughts of god on this matter.. ***** Lieven's post's start ***** Am 13.11.2019 um 16:41 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:

Suppose I write: {'elaDya' DaqDaq vIghro'mey tIQ tu'lu'}

At qepHom 2019, Marc Okrand said that this is not his only or definite answer, but I felt that {'elaDya' Daq} sounds weird in the first place. It reminded him of a puzzle made of country-shaped puzzle tiles, and if the Greece tile was the only one missing, you could say that is the {'elaDya' Daq} — the place where you would put the Greece tile. More may come later. ***** Lieven's post's end *****