[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH cha': <SuchwI' chaw'>

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI'nuv, jatlh:
> I agree that both forms (with and without {-Daq}) are acceptable. I  
> believe that omitting the {-Daq} is better formed, and you seem to  
> agree with that. 

In general, absolutely.

taH:
> A big piece of my drive is that I like it more when Klingon behaves  
> like a language rather than an encoding mechanism for English.

wa' DoS wIqIptaH. I don't disagree with you at all in that regard, and
much of the enjoyment I get out of it comes from not having to translate
English into Klingon in my head, and getting as close as possible to
what we think Klingons would say naturally, as well as saying what we
think other people will understand.

I think back to the question a while ago of whether {A B je law'} for
"many A and B" was acceptable Klingon. It's legal, certainly, but it
takes more experience with the canon and with actually using the
language to sense that it's kind of weird and unidiomatic, that {A law'
B law' je} is probably better.

> If you are treating {ghoS} like the verb it appears to actually be,  
> you'd be very comfortable with the question {nuq DaghoS?}, but that is  
> jarring if you are thinking in English, because in English, the  
> question is "WHERE", not "WHAT", dammit. It feels wrong to use {nuq},  
> if you are thinking in English and translating (or encoding) into  
> Klingon. 

For sure.

I'm going to clip the rest of what you've said, because it's also a case
of wa' DoS wIqIpchu'. I absolutely understand your position and I agree
with it in most respects. I intended only to point out that the {-Daq}
versus no {-Daq} isn't a black-and-white thing, and for sure the one
without the {-Daq} is the one that's usually more appropriate, I think.
In the particular instance that was being discussed I still reckon it
doesn't matter so much, but you make good points.

QeS 'utlh