Insulting a Trill

[bangteH]

Would "Soj QaQ'a' burghlIjDaq gharghHomvetlh" be accurately phrased?

[ter'eS]

Please post what you are trying to say. It makes it easier to respond accurately.

[bangteH]

that little worm in your stomach, is it good food?

[tesseraktik]

Broken down, that's...

Soj:  food (noun)
QaQ'a': he/she/it is good (question verb)
burghlIjDaq: your stomach (locative noun)
gharghHomvetlh: that worm (diminutive noun)

Looking at burghlIjDaq, I check what Klingonska Akademien has to say about locatives:
­Daq is used to express that something takes place in the vicinity of, inside, or in the direction towards a noun.
Now, as I understand it, this means that you can't say simply "the worm in your stomach", as there is no specified action taking place in the stomach.

Also, I'm not sure that this is a proper usage of the sufix -vetlh, as it refers to "an object which is not nearby or which is being brought up again as topic of the conversation" (Klingonska Akademien).  Of course, this depends a bit on how the conversation has preceded thus far, but I'm thinking just gharghHom would be sufficient.  However, we add the -'e' suffix to show that the worm is the topic of the sentence.  I would recommend using the -bogh suffix to show that the worm is something which performs an action, make that action Dab (to reside), and make the stomach locative the object of this action.  I'm thinking we might also want a -taH suffix on the action to show that it is ongoing, although I do not think it's necessary.

As for QaQ, this means "to be good", although I'm not sure in what sense.  The Swedish translation at Klingonska Akademien is "vara bra", which is different from being tasty, and while this is hardly a source of ultimate truth I would therefore instead recommend the verb 'ey, meaning "be good, be delicious, be tasty, be harmonious (v)"

As such, I think that the following sentence would be more appropriate:
burghlIjDaq Dabbogh gharghHom'e', 'ey'a'. = Little worm which resides in your stomach...  ...is it tasty?
On a purely aesthetic plane, this puts the punch of the sentence (the one which treats the worm as food, and thereby carries the insult) at the end of the sentence, which adds a bit to the shock value.


Now, it should be pointed out that I am hardly the King of Klingonese, so I wouldn't take my word for it.  Still, I hope I've given you some food for thought.

[ter'eS]

As such, I think that the following sentence would be more appropriate:
burghlIjDaq Dabbogh gharghHom'e', 'ey'a'. = Little worm which resides in your stomach...  ...is it tasty?
On a purely aesthetic plane, this puts the punch of the sentence (the one which treats the worm as food, and thereby carries the insult) at the end of the sentence, which adds a bit to the shock value.

Excellent analysis, excellent suggestion. majQa' 'very good'

[Qunchuy]

burghlIjDaq Dabbogh gharghHom'e', 'ey'a'. = Little worm which resides in your stomach...  ...is it tasty?
On a purely aesthetic plane, this puts the punch of the sentence (the one which treats the worm as food, and thereby carries the insult) at the end of the sentence, which adds a bit to the shock value.

One correction, one comment, and one complaint:

Correction: The verb Dab live at, reside in already includes a locative meaning, so its object does not need the -Daq suffix. burghlIj Dabbogh gharghHom'e' is correct for wormlet which resides in your stomach.

Comment: The diminutive suffix -Hom doesn't really mean "little". It is often better translated as "minor", and typically indicates something of lesser importance. It applies here just fine, but I wanted to make sure nobody got confused and started treating it as equivalent to the verb mach be small.

Complaint: By putting the verb at the end, you have violated the standard Object-Verb-Subject order of Klingon sentence structure. I understand the desire to have the "sting" come last, and some people will tell you that applying the topic suffix -'e' makes the gharghHom'e' clause into something other than the subject, but I don't think it works that way.

How about splitting it into two sentences?
chorlIj Dab gharghHom'e'. 'ey'a'? A wormlet resides in your belly. Is it tasty?

[bangteH]

This is really decent feedback. Thanks. When I get the opportunity to use it (in an RP -- Star Trek: Freedom), I'll let you know the response.

[SoplaHtaHwI']

How about splitting it into two sentences?
chorlIj Dab gharghHom'e'. 'ey'a'? A wormlet resides in your belly. Is it tasty?

Aren't we forgetting that there are also non-joined trill? ;-) Although a double question does not make for the best reading, isn't checking first the best course?

[tesseraktik]

Correction: The verb Dab live at, reside in already includes a locative meaning, so its object does not need the -Daq suffix. burghlIj Dabbogh gharghHom'e' is correct for wormlet which resides in your stomach.

Quite true; the -Daq is not necessary here.

Complaint: By putting the verb at the end, you have violated the standard Object-Verb-Subject order of Klingon sentence structure. I understand the desire to have the "sting" come last, and some people will tell you that applying the topic suffix -'e' makes the gharghHom'e' clause into something other than the subject, but I don't think it works that way.

You make a good point, and I'd recommend bangteH take your word over mine, but as I see it:

The precedent on which I based my wording is the sentence nutlhejbe' wayen yo' HoD, Do'Ha'. (he-us-accompany-not Wayne Fleet Captain, it-is-unfortunate).  I had wanted to specify what it was that was unfortunate, but I was told (by you, as it happens ) that "The subject will be understood as the situation just mentioned."  Now, the phrase burghlI Dabbogh gharghHom'e', (stomach-your resides-in-which worm-(diminutive)-(topic)) does not describe a situation, but rather declares the object minor-worm-which-resides-in-your-stomach.  I was thinking that much as the situation "Fleet Captain Wayne is not with us" could be interpreted as that which was unfortunate in the precedent, "minor-worm-which-resides-in-your-stomach" could be interpreted as the it in the sentence "Is it tasty?"
Admittedly, though, I have much to learn about tlhIngan Hol

How about splitting it into two sentences?
chorlIj Dab gharghHom'e'. 'ey'a'? A wormlet resides in your belly. Is it tasty?

I wonder if you are not actually asking if the actual residing is tasty...  ...but then, that may be the Lojbanist in me talking; I'm sure any Klingon would understand that it is the worm that is being spoken of.
By the way, good call chaning burgh (stomach) to chor (belly); that is a far more accurate description of where one finds the symbiont.

Aren't we forgetting that there are also non-joined trill? ;-) Although a double question does not make for the best reading, isn't checking first the best course?

Well, two possibilities that I see here:
1)  He already knows the Trill, and so knows enough to ask the question.  If he knows an unjoined Trill, I suppose he could ask if he'd like some gagh to make up for his deficiency
2)  He simply assumes that any true Trill is joined.  If the Trill is joined, he is insulted because of the derogatory way in which his symbiont is spoken of.  If he is not, he would have to admit this, and bangteH could base an insult on this.