tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 04 09:18:57 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh vaghmaH Soch: <DeS Suv>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Qov <[email protected]> wrote:
> yotlh lughoSta'. Qamqu' 'eSSIm 'ej loS. QamDI' Mahoun, loD qam Daq qarmoH
> 'eSSIm. loQ qIvDaj SIHmoH. yavDaq rarnISchu' SuvwI'.
(wa'maH vagh ben qep'a'Daq rurbogh qeq 'aghlu'. ngIbwIj tajvajmo' mIw
'ut pablaHbe' 'uSDu'wIj.)
> yajchoH Mahoun 'ej
> tonSaw' nap ghojchoHmoH 'eSSIm. laH chov. pumchoHmoHDI', jatlh
> Mahoun."yIloS." QumwI'Daj lel 'ej vay'vaD jatlh. QumwI' lelHa'DI', jatlh,
> "HungpInwI'vaD jIjatlhpu', maSuv 'e' wIqeq."[147]
bIng mu'meylIj vIlaDpa' nIbpu' qechwIj.
I wouldn't use {qeq} with an object, but it's not a big deal. For this
idea, I would have said {maqeqmeH loQ maSuv} or {...maQor}.
> HIvqa' 'eSSIm. pumlaH
> Mahoun. qIpDI' nuH qengbe'bogh nuv'e' loQ Hub'eghlaH 'ach jonlu'pu'DI'
> narghqu'laHbe'. narghmeH mIw nap cha' 'eSSIm 'ej qeqmeH Mahoun jonqa'.
>
> Mahoun 'emDaq QamtaH 'eSSIm, 'uchtaHvIS wa' DeS. Mahoun poS DeS bejqu'.
> 'uchmeH mIwvam lo'chugh SuvwI', ghaytan ghol Hugh SIj, pagh mIn DuQ.
> DaSDajDaq taj jej ghajtaHbogh SIchlaHbej 'eSSIm latlh ghop. Mahoun Hugh SIj
> neHbe'. 'a DeSDaj pe'laH 'ej De' 'aplo' teqlaH, HoDchaj lujolpa' yaSpu'.
'ong. loQ HIgh.
> noghtaH Mahoun. narghmeH, 'eSSIm yeb tlhe'moH 'e' nID 'ach qarchu'be'mo' DoS
> 'ej SenHa'taHmo', Qapbe'lI mIw.
tonSaw vISovbe'. mu'mey vIyaj 'ach Qagh DaDelbogh vIyajbe'. ram; lutDaq vanglu'!
> wej DaS ghoSta' 'eSSIm ghop. 'eSSIm poS DeS
> QortaHvIS Mahoun, 'eSSIm nIH DeS vaytaH 'eSSIm yab.[148]
nuqjatlh? DeS vay'a' yab? taQqu'.
> [148] Now accepting notes on whether verbs of fighting require both
> opponents to be subject {ghobchuq loDnI'pu'} are flexible or whether it's on
> a per verb basis. I'd have to get off the couch to check out the canon.
I suggest "per verb". {vay} might have the thing being defended
against as its object (e.g. jagh yan vay yoD lo'wI'), but I wouldn't
count on it. It's described for us with usage parallel to {jop}, which
is unlikely to be transitive. Here, though, I have no idea what you're
trying to describe.
> QIn neHqu'. Mahoun
> QIH neHbe'. Qorgh neH. vaj Mahoun potlh law' vav QIn potlh puS 'e' Har'a'?
toH, jIyajchoH. vay 'e' vIQubbe'. DeS SeHtaHvIS wa' yab 'ay', DeS nIS
latlh. ghob'eghqu' 'eSSIm.
> ghobe', 'ach QIn SuqmeH 'eSSIm, Mahoun voqHa'qa'moHchugh, lI'be'chugh QIn,
> ratlh pagh.
Qatlh wIv.
> SaHbogh vay' 'ej vupbe'bogh neH 'eSSIm. maghwI' puqbe'
> ghaHtaHmo' vup qorDu'Daj. yIn qeltaHvIS 'eSSIm QeychoH SomrawDu'Daj. pupchoH
> Mahoun. tlhup. jatlh, "chovoQlI'! 'eSSIm!" chuSchoH Mahoun QumwI'.
yInroH jIHtaH beq net Sov.
> Mahoun tlhabmoH. pagh jatlh. bej 'eSSIm, QumwI'vaD yel Hol jatlhtaHvIS.
> chay' ponlaH? tIghmeyDaj buSta'chugh, chaq ponmeH mu'mey qar Sov.
ghellaH.
> QumwI' SoQmoHpu' mon Mahoun
<SoQmoHpu'>Daq 'ut'a' <-DI'>?
> 'ej jatlh, "choHIvbe'bej 'e' lu'ol yaSpu'wI'.
> <ghoSujtaHQo'> jIjatlhpu'. yIruchqa'." Suv'eghrupchoHmoH Mahoun. 'eSSIm
> voqmo' Mahoun, voq'eghlaHbe'taHvIS 'eSSIm, DuQ.
It took me a few seconds to stop trying to interpret {DuQ} literally.
> jatlh 'eSSIm, "chaloy, lugh chaH. tlhoy jIQob. tlhoS qaQID. vavwI' Hegh
> bopmo' De' DaSo'bogh jIqImlaHbe'."
DaH QatlhchoH Mahoun wIv.
De' bajchugh 'eSSIm 'e' wuqlaH 'ach tlhIngan HaqwI' Hajba'. toH,
Mahoun DujDaq Qel tu'lu' qar'a'?
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol