tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 23 07:27:52 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: jatmey QaghmeyHey
- From: "Stauffer, Tad E (STAUFTE7)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: jatmey QaghmeyHey
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:27:54 -0500
> ----------
> From: WestphalWz
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 12:48 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: jatmey QaghmeyHey
>
> wejHu' HolQeD jatmey je vIHevpu'
> mangachmeH latlh Hechmey nob jatmey
>
> 1. lut'e' qonbogh Tad StaufferDaq mu'tlhegh {Dach qach -- ratlh DI
> neH}
> tu'lu'
> mu' {ratlh} tam mu' {chuv} 'e' vIchup
>
lut DaDubmeH mu'vam Dachup 'e' vItlho'. nIvlaw' 'e' vIHar jIH. povbe'mo'
mu'tay' vISovbogh, {chuv} vIqawbe'bej.
> 2. Qaghba' {'eH HIvruplaw' 'oH} qar {'eH HIvbeHlaw' 'oH}
>
mojaq vIwIvta'bogh vIHechqu'taH jIH. vetlh 'oS {'oH}. HIvbeHlaH janmey.
HIvruplaH Dep yoq joq.
TKD p.36 says that -beH refers to devices, while -rup refers to beings.
I assume that -rup can be used in this case, since TKD doesn't indicate
that the beings must be language-users. However, you probably thought
that the {'oH} referred to the guard's disruptor, rather than the
{vetlh'a'}, in which case I would use -beH.
> 3. Sor vuv SuS neH Sor Dogh (qonwI' charghwI') lutDaq mu'tlhegh
> {yuvqa' 'ej
> mevqa' SuS} tu'lu'
> qaq mu'tlhegh {yuvqa' SuS 'ej mevqa'} 'e' vIHar
> mu'tlhegh 'ay' wa'DIch tlhejnIS DIp'e' 'e' vIHar
> mIwvam lo'ta' MO 'e' vIlaDpu'
> nuq bIH vIDmeyraj'e'
>
jIQochqu'be'. SIbI' De' potlh cha'meH mu'tlhegh, qaq {yuvqa' SuS 'ej
mevqa'} loQ 'e' vIHar.
> more later SachtaHmeH tlhIngan Hol mangachjaj peHruS
>
>
-Tad Stauffer
[email protected]