On 8/23/2019 9:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

fse:

Behold the truth of all that I have spoken, and how thou art banished unjustly. But if the heart of Feanor is yet free and bold as were his words in Tirion, then I will aid him, and bring him far from this narrow land. For am I not a Vala also ? Yea, and more than those who sit in pride in Valimar; and I have ever been a friend to the Noldor, most skilled and most valiant of the people of Arda.

maj. ghItlh 'ay' DawIvpu'bogh vInaD.

tlh:

jIjatlhpu', 'ej mu'meywIj vIt yItlhoj. nIghImpu' 'ej nIghImtaHvIS nIQIH. pa'logh, tlhabpu' feanor tIq 'ej Qob bamvIpbe'pu'; *tirion*Daq jatlhtaHvIS feanor, mu'meyDaj rur tIqDaj. choHpu'be'chugh ngoDvam, vaj vIQaH, ghaHvaD Sepvam langvo' vIghoSmoH, 'ej vIHopmoH. *vala* jIHbe''a' je ? HIja'. *valimar* luDab *valar* chaHbogh 'op'e', 'ej Hem. 'ach vala jIHqu'. *noldor*pu' yoHqu' law' Hoch *arda* nuvpu' yoHqu' puS. 'ej reH *noldor*pu'vaD jup jIHpu'.

Comments:

1st:

Reading the "for am I not a Vala also ?" gives me goosebumps. It's fracking perfect.

That's the thing about Tolkien: he was literally a genius with words. He knew what sounded pleasing to the ear and could put such things together, seemingly effortlessly. This is why I don't translate Tolkien passages every day: my poor translations wouldn't hold a candle to the effect of Tolkien's original. Your translation, meaning no offense, is very choppy and difficult to read compared to the original. When translating Tolkien, you'll want to capture the emotional effect of the words more than the literal meaning of the words. I believe that a good-sounding Klingon sentence is one that isn't afraid to use the tools given in /The Klingon Dictionary,/ but which doesn't overuse them. Good Klingon style isn't necessarily short, choppy sentences, but neither is it three subordinate clauses, a sentence conjunction, and a sentence-as-object all combined in one. Context often makes a better sentence glue than morphology.

2nd:

{nIghImtaHvIS nIQIH} for "thou art banished unjustly".

I know that someone can say: by describing it this way, it can be perceived, that while he was being exiled, he was being wronged for some other reason irrelevant to the "his being exiled".

But I disagree. I believe that context makes it clear that "by being exiled he was wronged".

I don't have a problem with using this sort of context. I encourage it if it reduces the number of syntactic constructions you have to put into a sentence. I probably wouldn't have understood *nIQIH* to mean that they were unjust to you without further explanation. How about *nIghImpu'DI' ruv luHutlh*/when they banished you, they lacked justice./

3rd:

{ghaHvaD Sepvam langvo' vIghoSmoH}

I wondered whether we can have a noun with a {-vo'} being the object of the verb which follows it.

But since we know, that a noun with {-Daq} *can* be an object, and since the {-Daq} is a type-5, I thought, "why not ?"

You can only use a noun with *-Daq* as the object of a verb when that verb has an inherent locative sense, giving its object a locative meaning. (And it's considered redundant.) Presumably, the only way you could use a noun with *-vo'* as the object of a verb is if the verb has an inherent ablative sense, giving its object an ablative meaning. Now, *ghoS* is an interesting verb, because not only are we explicitly told it has a locative sense and can take a noun with *-Daq* as its object, but we also know that part of the definition of *ghoS* is /go away from./ *ghoS* is a verb that might just possibly let you use *-vo'* on its object. We're not told that it can do this, and we're not told that any verb has an inherent ablative notion to it, so I can't declare that this is a legal thing to do, but it does have some logic behind it beyond /why not?/ Of course, you'd be perfectly safe using a normal, non-object ablative, so why not do that?

4th:

{*noldor*pu' yoHqu' law' Hoch *arda* nuvpu' yoHqu' puS}

I put the {-qu'} in {yoH}, because a little bird told me, that in paq'batlh we have the following:

{SoH rallaw' law' Hoch rallaw' puS}

Of course, I could have just written:

{*noldor*pu' yoH law' Hoch *arda* nuvpu' yoH puS}

But reading m-w, I understood "valiant" as describing someone who is more brave, than "just brave", so I thought that shoving a {-qu'} would be called for.

I believe that /valiant/ means not only brave, but showing that you're brave. It doesn't really mean /very brave./ As for adding *-qu',* eh. I have a feeling this is perfectly fine. I don't have all the various allowed forms of *law'/puS* handy for checking, but adding a *-qu'* doesn't change the grammar of the quality, just the meaning of the word.

Also, as far as the {Hoch *arda* nuvpu'} of {*noldor*pu' yoHqu' law' Hoch *arda* nuvpu' yoHqu' puS} is concerned..

I distinctively remember having seen a Ca'Non law'/puS sentence where the {Hoch} was similarly part of a noun phrase, and not just on its own. Sadly, I don't remember that sentence..

*targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS*/your targ has a bigger brain than all your ancestors put together/ (PK)

However, I *could* have written it as:

{*arda* nuvpu''e' *noldor*pu' yoHqu' law' Hoch yoHqu' puS}

But I didn't.

I'd have preferred it. When an idea is superlative rather than comparative, it's best to use the actual superlative form. Why would you say /our team is//better than all other teams/ when you can say /our team is the best/?

5th:

{*valar* chaHbogh 'op, 'ej Hem. 'ach vala jIHqu'} for "(being a vala) more than those who sit in pride in valimar"

I *could* have said this in a "classic" law'/puS  construction:

{valar'e' jIH Dun law' valimar valar Dun puS}

But I feel that by saying chaH/jIHqu', expresses more the "feeling" of "they are valar but I AM vala".

*/Vala/ chIwmeH, jIH nIv law' /Valimar Valar/ Hem nIv puS*/In order to epitomize a Vala, I am superior to the proud Valar of Valimar./

And after all, lets be honest..

Who actually reads the klingon that is being written here anyway ?

/Tolkien/ DamughDI', vIlaD jIH'e'. One last minor note before I translate the passage myself: Singular: /Noldo, Vala /Plural: /Noldor, Valar/ These days I prefer to use the foreign plural in translations, but if you want to pluralize these with *-pu',* say /*Noldo*/*pu'* and /*Vala*/*pu'.* *jIjatlhpu' 'ej jIvItpu'. boghImlu'pu'DI', lujpu' ruv. /Tirion/Daq jatlhpu' /Feanor/; tlhab 'ej jaq 'e' lu'ang mu'meyDaj. tlhabtaHchugh tIqDaj 'ej jaqtaHchugh, ghaH vIboQ. puHvam langvo' vIqem. /Vala/ jIHbe''a' je? HIja'; /Vala/ chIwmeH, jIH nIv law' /Valimar Valar/ Hem nIv puS. /Arda/ nugh'e' /Noldor/ po' law' Hoch po' puS 'ej /Noldor/ yoH law' Hoch yoH puS. reH /Noldor/ jup jIHpu'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name