“We share with each other” / machqu'bej qo'maj
(Sorry for spamming the list so much lately, I’ve been having a fit of inspiration.) What’s the correct way to say “we share a thing with each other”? The direct object of {bon} is supposed to be the thing being shared, so neither {Doch mabon'egh} nor {Doch mabonchuq} seem right (and changing the prefix to {wI-} just seems to make things worse). {maHvaD Doch wIbon} seems awkward, but I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be that. The actual thing I want to express is “we share the world with each other”, and within this context, I think {HochvaD qo' wIbon} works fine and avoids the awkwardness I perceived with {maHvaD X wI-Y}. It just made me curious as to how this would be expressed more generally. Anyway, I was reconstructing the original Klingon lyrics of another song when this question came up; as usual, all suggestions for improvement are welcome, though I’ll only bother trying to fix grave grammatical or lexical errors since I want to keep the rhyme and meter of the song: qo'vamDaq rut maHagh 'ej rut maSaQ, 'ej rut vay' wItul qoj wIghIjlu'taH. HochvaD qo' wIbontaH, 'ej wISovnISbej maH: mach qo'vam, qo'Hom, qo'maj! machqu'bej qo'vam, qar'a'? machqu'bej qo'Hom, qar'a'? machqu'bej qo'maj, qar'a'? HIja', machqu'bej! wa'[1] maS neH, wa' jul SuD je ghaj qo'maj, 'ej monbogh ghot Daleghchugh, jup Daghaj. Hatlh wavtaHbej HuD'a'mey, 'ej tInqu' bIQ'a'mey, 'ach machqu'bej qo'maj! machqu'bej qo'vam, qar'a'? machqu'bej qo'Hom, qar'a'? machqu'bej qo'maj, qar'a'? HIja', machqu'bej! (It’s a small world, in case it’s not obvious.) [1] The Memory Alpha Page on Qo'noS says pIraqSIS is its only moon; not sure what the source for that is, but if accurate, and tera' bopbe'chugh bomvam, 'ej Qo'noS bopchugh 'oH, then presumably this song was written before the events of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country.
I forgot to include the intended meaning again; here it is in case I wrote anything that’s so far off it’s hard to understand:
On Jun 8, 2018, at 19:43, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
qo'vamDaq rut maHagh 'ej rut maSaQ, 'ej rut vay' wItul qoj wIghIjlu'taH. HochvaD qo' wIbontaH, 'ej wISovnISbej maH: mach qo'vam, qo'Hom, qo'maj!
On this world sometimes we laugh and sometimes we cry, And sometimes we hope something, or we are being frightened. We share the world with all, and we certainly need to know it: This world, a little world, our world, is small! (I just realized that if the lack of an overt object preceding {wISovnISbej maH} is problematic, this could be changed to {ngoD wISovnIS maH} easily.)
machqu'bej qo'vam, qar'a'? machqu'bej qo'Hom, qar'a'? machqu'bej qo'maj, qar'a'? HIja', machqu'bej!
Refrain: This world is certainly very small, isn’t it? The little world is certainly very small, isn’t it? Our world is certainly very small, isn’t it? Yes, it is certainly very small!
wa' maS neH, wa' jul SuD je ghaj qo'maj, 'ej monbogh ghot Daleghchugh, jup Daghaj. Hatlh wavtaHbej HuD'a'mey, 'ej tInqu' bIQ'a'mey, 'ach machqu'bej qo'maj!
Our world has only one moon and one yellow/green/blue sun, and when you see a person who smiles, you have a friend. The big mountains are certainly dividing the countryside, and the oceans are very large, But our world is certainly very small.
machqu'bej qo'vam, qar'a'? machqu'bej qo'Hom, qar'a'? machqu'bej qo'maj, qar'a'? HIja', machqu'bej!
(Refrain, same as before)
On 6/8/2018 8:43 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
What’s the correct way to say “we share a thing with each other”? The direct object of {bon} is supposed to be the thing being shared, so neither {Doch mabon'egh} nor {Doch mabonchuq} seem right (and changing the prefix to {wI-} just seems to make things worse). {maHvaD Doch wIbon} seems awkward, but I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be that.
The actual thing I want to express is “we share the world with each other”, and within this context, I think {HochvaD qo' wIbon} works fine and avoids the awkwardness I perceived with {maHvaD X wI-Y}. It just made me curious as to how this would be expressed more generally.
The correct use of *bon* is: *B-vaD C bon A* /A shares C with B./ I see two possibilities. First, just follow the formula: *maHvaD qo' wIbon.* The two-way nature of the transaction doesn't come through with this, though. Second, expand it to *SoHvaD qo' vIbon 'ej jIHvaD Dabon.* Repeat the *qo'* in the right place if you need poetic symmetry or meter. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jun 8, 2018, at 20:09, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/8/2018 8:43 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote: What’s the correct way to say “we share a thing with each other”? The direct object of {bon} is supposed to be the thing being shared, so neither {Doch mabon'egh} nor {Doch mabonchuq} seem right (and changing the prefix to {wI-} just seems to make things worse). {maHvaD Doch wIbon} seems awkward, but I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be that.
The actual thing I want to express is “we share the world with each other”, and within this context, I think {HochvaD qo' wIbon} works fine and avoids the awkwardness I perceived with {maHvaD X wI-Y}. It just made me curious as to how this would be expressed more generally. The correct use of bon is:
B-vaD C bon A A shares C with B.
I see two possibilities. First, just follow the formula: maHvaD qo' wIbon. The two-way nature of the transaction doesn't come through with this, though.
Yeah, the formula is where I started, and I couldn’t put my finger on why I thought {maHvaD qo' wIbon} was awkward, but I think you’re right that it doesn’t communicate reciprocity, which is probably why I was grasping at straws with -chuq and -'egh. Do you see any problem with {HochvaD qo' wIbontaH} as I’ve used it in the reconstructed song? (Or with anything else in the song, for that matter?)
Second, expand it to SoHvaD qo' vIbon 'ej jIHvaD Dabon. Repeat the qo' in the right place if you need poetic symmetry or meter.
Thanks; that’s a good suggestion if I want to communicate reciprocity in a construct like that in the future.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/8/2018 9:14 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
Do you see any problem with {HochvaD qo' wIbontaH} as I’ve used it in the reconstructed song?
Just that it doesn't mean /share the world with each other,/ but /share the world with everyone,/ which is a more inclusive idea. It's not automatically the case that *maH* and *Hoch* are the same group. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Sorry if I missed it, but have you considered using the word «lIn»? This seems to be the sort of context that it was made for: One where there isn't a provider and a beneficiary, but a set of equal parties: «qo'vam wIlIn.» That doesn't address the more general issue of how to talk about "each other" as a beneficiary, though. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2018 3:32:41 AM To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] “We share with each other” / machqu'bej qo'maj On 6/8/2018 9:14 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote: Do you see any problem with {HochvaD qo' wIbontaH} as I’ve used it in the reconstructed song? Just that it doesn't mean share the world with each other, but share the world with everyone, which is a more inclusive idea. It's not automatically the case that maH and Hoch are the same group. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jun 8, 2018, at 20:56, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
Sorry if I missed it, but have you considered using the word «lIn»? This seems to be the sort of context that it was made for: One where there isn't a provider and a beneficiary, but a set of equal parties: «qo'vam wIlIn.»
You didn’t miss it, as I hadn’t mentioned it, but I chose not to use {lIn} because I wasn’t sure if it could be used with a simple subject (in this case, {maH}, as opposed to, e.g. {vay', latlh je}), and while neither {qo' wIlIn} nor {maHvaD qo' wIbon} quite captured what I was going for, {maHvaD qo' wIbon} seemed closer. As I mentioned, in this particular case I felt that {HochcaD qo' wIbontaH} better captured what I wanted anyway (as SuStel pointed out, it’s a more inclusive idea), but anyway, i was looking for a more general solution just out of curiosity. I think SuStel’s suggestion of splitting {maH} up and having a B-vaD C bon A 'ej A-vaD C bon B construct when {maH} is something smaller than {Hoch} would probably work for many cases.
That doesn't address the more general issue of how to talk about "each other" as a beneficiary, though.
//loghaD From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2018 3:32:41 AM To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] “We share with each other” / machqu'bej qo'maj
On 6/8/2018 9:14 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote: Do you see any problem with {HochvaD qo' wIbontaH} as I’ve used it in the reconstructed song? Just that it doesn't mean share the world with each other, but share the world with everyone, which is a more inclusive idea. It's not automatically the case that maH and Hoch are the same group. -- 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 8, 2018, at 20:56, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
Sorry if I missed it, but have you considered using the word «lIn»? This seems to be the sort of context that it was made for: One where there isn't a provider and a beneficiary, but a set of equal parties: «qo'vam wIlIn.»
That's exactly what I was about to suggest.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
You didn’t miss it, as I hadn’t mentioned it, but I chose not to use {lIn} because I wasn’t sure if it could be used with a simple subject (in this case, {maH}, as opposed to, e.g. {vay', latlh je}), and while neither {qo' wIlIn} nor {maHvaD qo' wIbon} quite captured what I was going for, {maHvaD qo' wIbon} seemed closer.
If you can tell me how you want "we share a thing" and "we share a thing with each other" to mean two different ideas, I might be able to give you a suggestion for how to say them. But in general, and definitely in this specific context, I don't think "with each other" adds anything to the meaning. Usually the simplest and most descriptive way in Klingon to say "X does something with Y" is to say "X and Y do something", which is just what {wIlIn} does for a literal "we share it with us". -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
Felix Malmenbeck -
SuStel