Re: Qa'Hom qaDHom (KLBC)

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@email.msn.com>]

jatlh peHruS:

><< < DubDaq QottaH Saj. >>
>
>My point is that the suffix {-Daq} refers to a place in a locative manner.
I
>think that {targh DubDaq ghew tu'lu'} is okay.  This shows that the bug is
>ON/AT the targ's back.  I do not like, however, "lying on its back" being
>expressed by {DubDaq Qot}.  I have a problem:  I translate this as "lying
on
>[someone else's] back."  I cannot conceive of an entity lying down upon its
>own back as the place of lying down.  You see, I cannot escape from my own
>body and subsequently lie down on the back part of my own body.  {DubwIjDaq
>ghopwIj vIlan} is okay.

I certainly appreciate this point, but look for a minute at the English
phrase.

I lie on my back.

Do I?  It would seem to make as little sense in English as your point for
Klingon.

However, the phrase might be considered this way: I lie, and my body, not
including my back (because it's part of the idiom), is laying on my back
(and which, by implication, must be on a support of its own).

It's possible that this whole argument is at the point of splitting some
very, very fine hairs.

>Challenge:  How do we say "lying on one's back"?  My answer is way below.
>
>Qot targh.  ravDaq 'oHtaH DubDaj'e'.

This is certainly an anatomically correct answer.

SuStel
Stardate 99500.8