[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: Huq

[SuStel]

On 3/22/2016 1:11 PM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
> chaHvaD malja' wIHuqlaHmeH Holchaj wIghojnISta'.
> we needed to learn their language in order to be able to transact
> business with them.

I'm not entirely certain about the {-ta'} on {wIghojnIS}. If I say it as 
just {wIghojnIS} it seems to be exactly right. You're probably not 
talking about needing to learn and then completing needing to learn; 
you're probably talking about being in the state of needing to learn. 
That would not take a {-ta'}.

Even if it did, I doubt the completion would have been intentionally 
arrived at. {-pu'} would be better. But I still don't think the suffix 
is right here.

> joghDaq Da'el net tuch ; meqmo' chaHvaD malja' boHuqlaHbe'. DaH naDevvo' yIDoH !
> one forbids that you enter this quadrant ; because of this reason you
> aren't able to transact business with them. now back off from here !

Voragh pointed out that you don't need {-Daq} on {jogh} because the 
object of {'el} includes a locative sense. However it's also not wrong 
to include the {-Daq}, just redundant. It's kind of like say "I entered 
into the room" in English. It's not wrong, but "I entered the room" is 
all you need; the "into" is redundant.

Notice that you said {joghDaq Da'el} instead of {joghvamDaq Da'el} or 
{joghvam Da'el} "you enter this quadrant."

The {meq} seems odd to me. "You are forbidden from entering this 
quadrant. Because of the reason, you cannot do business with them." 
Adding a {-vam} to {meq} ties the {meq} together with the previous 
sentence (which you did in your English translation).

I'd say {DaH yImej} "now leave!" instead of {DaH naDevvo' yIDoH}, but 
that's just a matter of style.

> taghpa' noH, jIlma'vaD maHuqlaH ; DaH Qobqu'..
> before the war started we were able to transact with our neighbours ;
> now it is too dangerous.

Consider also the adverbial {tlhoy} "overly, to an excessive degree." 
{tlhoy Qob} "it is too dangerous."

For years {-qu'} was the only way we could express this, but it also 
acts as emphasis: {DaH Qobqu'} "now it is DANGEROUS (as opposed to being 
something else)."

Using {-qu'} remains correct, but {tlhoy} is so much nicer.

> chetojtaHchugh, vaj latlh wIv wIghajbe'mo' cheraD 'ej HuqmeH chaw'lij
> wIghang Do'Ha' 'e' DaqaSmoH.
> if you continue deceiving us, then because we won't have any other
> choice you will force us and unfortunately you will cause us to end
> prematurely your transaction licence.

Can one {ghaj} a {wIv}? That's an English idiom; I'm not sure if it 
works in Klingon. Can one {ghang} "end prematurely (an event)" a {chaw'}?

Consider:

    jaS mawIvlaHbe'mo'
    because we cannot choose differently

    HuqmeH chaw'lIj wInge'
    we take away your transaction license

> jaj 'oH DaHjaj'e' Heghpu' vavwI' 'ej DaSovbej ! DaHjaj malja' DaHuq
> DaneH 'e' DangIl'a'. yavlI'Daq qaHoH ; yavvetlhDaq Dagho' ! pa' qaHoH
> !
> today is the day my father died and you definitely know it ! you dare
> want to transact business today ? I will kill you were you stand !

That first sentence doesn't make sense to me. I assume it's the 
ANNIVERSARY of the day your father died? I'm having trouble coming up 
with ways to express an anniversary. Maybe something like this:

    vavwI' Hegh jaj 'oH DaHjaj'e'
    today is the day of my father's death

    vagh ben jajvam Heghpu' vavwI'
    on this day five years ago my father died

I feel like neither of these quite gets it right.

I wouldn't bother with the {-'a'}. You're not really asking a question; 
in English you're intoning a statement as a question as a rhetorical 
device. You're not asking for a yes or no answer. {DaHjaj malja' DaHuq 
DaneH 'e' DangIl!}

I'm not happy with {yavlI'Daq} (anyway it should have {-lIj}, not 
{-lI'}), and your alternative is no better. You might stray from the 
English with {DaqlIjDaq SoHtaHvIS qaHoH}, or {pa' SoHtaHvIS qaHoH}, or 
even just {pa' qaHoH}. Or you might be less literal and say {SIbI' qaHoH}.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name