tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 04 04:54:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ruv Huj
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ruv Huj
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 07:55:03 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
pov lutlIj. latlh QIn DalabDI' Qaghmey DaSaH 'e' Da'ang vaj
latlh QaghmeyHey qa'ang.
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:38:04 -0800 (PST) "Andeen, Eric"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I've had the idea for a Twilight Zonette...
> The names are unmarked. They are: Quratlh (the judge) and
> vaHur (the defendant).
> bo'DIj letlhDaq <puqwI' DaHoH> jach Heghpu'bogh puq SoS. <DaHuplu'be'
> 'e' vIHaj. puqwI' DaSaHbe'ba'. bISaH'egh neH.> jatlh. yIttaH neH ghot
> pumlu'bogh. jatlhbe'. jachbogh SoS'e' leghlaHbe'law'.
>
> bo'DIj vaS 'el Hoch. quSchaj Sam 'ej ba'. loS. 'el bo'DIj yaS. ja':
> <peQam. DaH vangqa' bo'DIjvam. che' Quratlh noHwI' quv.> 'el noHwI' 'ej
> <peba'> ra'. ba' Hoch.
naDev bIjatlhchu'ta'. mu'meylIj vItIvqu'.
> ra' noHwI': <yIjatlh, HubwI'>
>
> jatlh HubwI': <qalchoH 'Iw chovnatlh 'e' chaw' Hung yaS. ngoDvam
> vItobta'. vaj vaHur qama' tlhabmoHlu' 'ej pumHa'lu' 'e' vIpoQneS.>
Are you using {vaHur qama'} as a title, like {Qugh HoD}? I was
confused because this sounded like vaHur's prisoner.
> QIt jangchoH noHwI'. jatlhtaHvIS QeHlaw'. <jIQoch, HubwI'. loQ vangHa'
> Hung.> loQ yev. <yIQam, vaHur qama'. bIyepHa'mo' 'ej bIchechmo' puq
> DaHoH. teHbej ngoDvam, 'ach toblaHchu'be' bo'DIjvam. qatlhabnISmoH. DaH
> bIpumHa'lu' 'e' vIra'.>
>
> vaHur mInDu' buS noHwI' mInDu'.
>
> QIt ghel <bIyaj'a'?>
>
> qaStaHvIS poH mach loQ wovchoH vaS, 'ach wanI'vam tu' pagh. chaq Hov'a'
> So'Ha' 'eng 'ej So'qa'.
machlaHbe' poH. ngajlaH poH.
> <HIja'> jang vaHur.
>
> <vaj bo'DIj vaSwIjvo' yIghoS> ra' noHwI'.
>
> Hoy'chuq vaHur, HubwI' je. Qam vaHur qorDu' 'ej monchoH. Quchba' vaSvo'
> mej HIvwI', noHwI', Heghpu'bogh puq SoS je. pagh lujatlh 'ej qabDu'chaj
> pagh lughItlhlu'.
I'm assuming there is supposed to be a period after {Quchba'}.
Also, that last clause looks like "and their faces #0 are
written." Is there a missing {-Daq} on {qabDu'chaj}? And do you
really want {lu-} here, given that {pagh} is grammatically
singular when used as a noun?
> <maQap!> jatlh vaHur Sey.
>
> <chaq ...> neH jang HubwI'. vaS'a' mej montaHvIS.
>
> bo'DIj vaSvo' mej vaHur qorDu'. letlhDaq ghIr 'ej He HeHDaq Qam.
> vaHurvaD QItqu' qaSchoH Hoch. vIHlaHbe'law'. bejlaH neH. He botlhvo'
> ghoS lupwI'. chIjHa'lu'law'. pay' pe'vIl tlhe' 'ej nom He HeH ghoS. HeH
> juS 'ej vaHur puq ngeQ.
While I'd like to see it happen, I don't think we've been told
that {-qu'} can be used on adverbials. {QItqu'} is probably not
available to us, though it makes sense to me, and apparently to
you. Then again, I've always wanted {QIt} to be a full-blown
verb.
> puqDajDaq qet vaHur. puq porgh mach Qaw'law' lupwI'. Dejpu' roDaj. loQ
> tlhuHlaH puqDaj 'e' tu' vaHur, 'ach HarlaHbe'. <chay' yIntaH> SIv.
> puqDaj qab buS, 'ej yIntaH 'e' tu'. <HIQaH vavoy> tlhup puq. ghoghDaj
> qat bech. poSchoH nujDaj, 'ej HurghchoH mInDu'Daj. Hegh.
You already noted the {bech} problem.
> Qaw''eghchoHlaw' vaHur yab. pagh leghlaH. pagh QoylaH. <HIQaH vavoy> neH
> qawlaH. wovqu'choH Hoch, 'ej poSchoH vaHur mInDu'. nIHDaq Qam HubwI'Daj.
> 'etDaq 'oHtaH raS. 'o'Daq ba' qorDu'Daj, Hoch bejwI' je. yIntaH puqDaj,
> 'ej rIQbe'law'. bo'DIj vaSDaq Qamqa' 'e' tu'. mISqu', 'ach 'e' tu' pagh.
> jatlhlaw' noHwI', vaj 'Ijqa' vaHur.
I don't think {'ach} works in the middle of an SAO like that. It
is two sentences, but no, it's one, but no... I know what you
are getting at. You want to note the contrast from expectations,
but in doing so, you twist the grammar in a direction I've never
seen it twisted before. Perhaps: {mISqu' 'ach mIS 'e' tu' pagh.}
Perhaps {mISqu' 'ach ghu'vam tu' pagh.}
> jatlhqa' noHwI' quv <bIyaj'a'?>
majQa'! yIHem!
charghwI'