tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 09 11:37:25 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: parmaqqay bomvaD
From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <[email protected]>
> >>parmaqqay bomvaD
> >
> >Since I assume you mean "a song for (my) love" and not "a love for (my)
> >song", I suggest <parmaqqayvaD bom>. You may even want to explicitly
state
> >that it is for your love, <parmaqqaywI'vaD bom>.
>
> Let me clarify something about my explanation: Technically, you can't
uses
> a Type 5 suffix on the first noun in a noun-noun construction, so as it
> stands, this is ungrammatical. However, it may be acceptable in poetry
> (especially if it is short for something like, <parmaqqayvaD bom vIqon>),
> since we know that in many languages the rules of grammar are often
> stretched in poetry (the most famous example in Klingon is probably
> <tlhonmey>).
I never accept the "poetry allows the rules to be bent" line myself. It's
just an excuse to mimic one's native language grammar without being
responsible for it. I could use that excuse to justify ANYTHING. The
simple fact is, we don't know enough about Klingon poetry to say much about
what would be and would not be acceptable rules-breaking.
However, we DO know that entire sentences are acceptable as titles of
pieces: consider /ghobchuq loDnI'pu'/ "the brothers battle one another," a
common statue in Klingon culture. Why not mimic THIS instead:
parmaqqaywI'vaD bom vIqon
"I wrote a song for my love"
Or use a verbal phrase:
parmaqqaywI' quvmoHbogh bom
"Song which honors my love" (or alternatively, "My love which a song
honors")
parmaqqaywI' quvmoHmeH bom
"song for honoring my love"
Anyway, what's wrong with just plain
parmaq bom
"love song"
or
parmaqqay bom
"love(d one) song"
SuStel
Stardate 3109.4