Hi ter'eS,
Thanks again for the advice, I've always been the type to leap before looking, I get more lumps, but as I said before, the bigger the mistakes, the bigger the lessons, your post is choc-full-o lessony goodness.
not SIS is fine, but nubochqu'laHtasHvIS has problems. As far as we know, boch just means "to shine", not "to shine on somebody/something". You might be able to say maHvaD boch, but this really means "shines for our benefit". I also don't understand why you added -qu' and -laH; they don't add any meaning, and if they're just there to fill out the metre, then your poetry is poor. bochtaHvIS Hovmaj "while our star shines" is all you need.
Thanks!, that does clear up some stuff, however, I was under the impression that -qu' emphasized the preceding, including the verb, wouldn't it be really shine, or shine well. Of course, you are correct in that it is more or less a superfluous suffix, as is -laH, if something is doing it, then it is obviously able to do it.
In the second sentence, I wonder if "very afraid to not see" is what you meant to say; if not, you'll need to reword this. I also question your use of -ma' to "personify" hearts. Unless the hearts are going to actually speak somewhere in the poem, I don't see -ma' as appropriate at all; it just looks like you used the wrong suffix.
Actually, that one seems to come out as intended
As for -ma' I am forced to agree, it really does detract and confuse without adding any real meaning. I seem to have a suffix addiction.
yavDaq molqu'rupbe''ta' tIqDu'ma'
DaH yub taHlaw'ta' chaH 'ej lIjchu'vIS 'oy'
"On the ground, our hearts have accomplished not being ready to very much bury;
Now a husk they have accomplished apparently to continue and pain is *continuing to perfectly forget (something)"
mol is a transitive verb, "to bury", not "to be buried". Your use of
-ta' (watch the extra
') is not correct:
-ta' implies that an action was completed on purpose before the general time frame of the main verb or narrative.
-qu' is also mis-used; how can you be "very buried"? It reminds me of the phrase from some movie "Kill him a lot."
I see what you are saying with most, except for ta', I want to say that it is both completed and intentional, how would I say, or at least express the sentiment of buried, intentionally.
My understanding of -Daq must be off, I was led to believe that it meant on, in, around, based on the context, if I say buried, and ground + Daq, can't -Daq mean in, I think I misunderstand this concept, or maybe there is simply a better way of expressing "in" as in buried in the earth/ground.
{-Daq} <locative>
This suffix indicates that something is happening (or has
happened or will happen) in the vicinity of the noun to which
it is attached. It is normally translated by an English preposition:
<to, in, at, on.> The exact translation is determined by the
meaning of the whole sentence. For example, {pa'Daq} is {pa'}
<room> plus the suffix {-Daq.} It may occur in sentences such as
the following:
{pa'Daq jIHtaH} <I'm in the room.>
{pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.>
Then again, throughout I have been using suffixes superfluously, and this may be the case yet again, still, I am somewhat at a loss for how I can express buried in the ground - specifically.
taHlaw'ta' is a contradition in terms: how can a completed (-ta') action be on-going (taH)? I suspect you really want either moj "to become", or something like yub chaHlaw' "They are apparently husks". The "pain forgets" phrase needs reworking, and I would not accept plain -vIS without taH-.
Here you are right, yub chaHlaw' makes perfect sense. As for the pain, yes, it was problematic, and I was under the impression that the previous topic of they/them would carry over, implicitly.
now husk they[are]-apparently and [they]forget[them]-obviously-while [they]ache
DaH yub[mey?] chaHlaw' 'ej lIjchu'vIS 'oy'
At least, that is how I understand it, my understanding is obviously flawed, so perhaps you can point out where some of my errors lie with this, aside from my superfluous suffix usage, I think we have established that I need to cut back on my over use.
pIj DiQap'ta' Harghmey, Qormey chaH neH
bong wIQapbe'bejpu' [Qoj naj]'a'majvaD
"Often battles we accomplish accomplishing them; skirmishes they are only.
Accidently for our [to make war dream] we accidently definately do not succeed."
Doesn't Qap also mean to win, a competition? A war/battle is a kind of competition, and doesn't this load the sentence? By saying Qapta' aren't I saying won intentionally? Later on, with Qapbe'pu' am I not saying lost, with the implication of accidentally? Obviously, I think -bej is again superfluous.
Oy. Well, Qormey chaH neH is correct. Harghmey is the object and is in the wrong place. Don't use Qoj as a noun; we have veS "warfare" and noH "a particular war". Combining the ideas of "accidently" and "definately" seems odd. Usually, phrases with -vaD precede the main verb, but I would be willing to make exceptions in poetry. But in general, taken on its own without referring to the translation, this last sentence makes no sense to me at all.
Sorry to be so harsh, but if you're going to post poetry on a Klingon board, you need to have the ridges to take it.
You weren't harsh at all, you have been really really helpful, don't worry, my ridges are just fine.
Edit: I forgot to mention that naj "to dream" is also a verb.
Yes, I evilly co-opted verbs because I couldn't find dream, also with Qoj, I somehow missed noH and veS, both would have been excellent choices, so that is an error of limited vocabulary, however, it has just been increased by at least two words
Anyway, thanks again for your corrections and advice, if you have any more pointers, I'd love to hear them.
Klingon Imperial Forums
Author
