tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 27 13:47:48 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh cha'maH Soch: SuchwI' Hat
<html>
<body>
At 13:59 '?????' 7/27/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">lut vItIvbej 'a poHwIj
lunatlhmo' Qu'mey law' pIj vIbuSlaHbe'. And<br>
please forgive my lapsing into English for this chapter's
comments.</blockquote><br>
DapojlaHDI' jIbel 'ach pagh Dawel. bIghaqqu'pu'. poHlIj vIvuv. And
for anyone who wants to poke a finger in just to point out a missed
prefix, or tell me something that made them laugh, that is much
appreciated, too.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:22 PM,
Qov <[email protected]> wrote:<br>
> jolpa' 'el ngaH. lutlhej cha' 'avwI'pu' vaQ. taDchoH Dugh
beq.<br><br>
I don't see italics. The email came through with a text/plain
content<br>
type. Did it get "downgraded" on the way out of your emailer,
on the<br>
way through the list server, or on the way into my Google Mail
inbox?<br>
From what I can track down, I think it's the first
option.</blockquote><br>
Yeah, I've gone back to an e-mail program that dates from the days that
it was only polite to strip everything other than basic ASCII from a
message, so as not to deposit garbage on your recipient's screen. They
are still in the ghItlh. I may be able to adjust the e-mail program to
let them through.<br><br>
<font size=2>QeychoH Mahoun burgh. <i>qatlh lutvam Qoyqa' neH Mahoun 'e'
Har Qa'bar?</i> <br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Or maybe they weren't
there in the first place, but in that case why<br>
would you mention them?</blockquote><br>
I think I was talking about them being in the ghItlh, because it was
something that QeS recommended for ship names and you recommended for
internal speech. I had already implemented QeS' suggestion and embraced
yours as excellent.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> maH neH nurI'laH.tlhoS Seng
vIpojlaw'ta'.<br><br>
There's a space missing after {nurI'laH.}</blockquote><br>
maj.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> nIb Sa' lupDujHom meH
bobcho', rIpDuy qughwI' meH<br>
> bobcho' 'e' vIHar.<br><br>
You need a {je} between {bobcho'} and {'e'}.</blockquote><br>
maj. mu'tlheghmeywIj DalaDlaHtaHmo' jIbelqu'. Maybe I should be allowed
to write only one sentence a day and made to write it out ten times
correctly if there are errors.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> Qel pa'vo', yejquv Duy
DujDaq Qel jolchu' Qoreq.<br><br>
I don't understand why it's {jolchu'} instead of just
{jol}.</blockquote><br>
I'm looking for the idea that he did it in one, without beaming him first
to the transporter room. In English I would say "He beamed him
straight from his room to the high councillor's ship" maybe
"directly" "right through" "all the way" or
the like. But if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. I'll take it
out.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> jatlh qaH'eng. «Hung
ghochwI' botojpu' tugh 'e' tlhoj qImyal.<br><br>
I think you've consistently used a comma before quoted speech, so
the<br>
period here is a little distracting.</blockquote><br>
Yup, probably a cut and paste artifact from when the attribution was
after the speech.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> «joy'wI' pa'DajDaq vajar
loSlI' jatlhlu'», jatlh Hota'ro'.<br><br>
{joy'wI' pa'Daj} is a bit dissonant to my mind's ear, with the first<br>
noun and the {-Daj} competing for ownership of the room. {joy'meH<br>
pa'Daj} sounds better to me.</blockquote><br>
vIlaj. Hoch vIchoH, vaj DaloDqa'DI' vIchoHpu' 'e' yIqaw.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> «...lu'av QaSDaj matlhchu'
je.»<br><br>
{QaS} is singular, right? The {lu-} prefix is inappropriate. Also,
I'm<br>
pretty sure that this {je} should immediately follow the
verb.</blockquote><br>
cha'logh bIlugh.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> may'DujDaq HoD pa'mey
Hubqu'lu'bej 'ej le'moH ngIq HoD.<br><br>
{pa'mey} is plural, so {Hublu'} does need a {lu-}
prefix.</blockquote><br>
not DunuQqa' Qaghvetlh 'e' vIqaSmoHlaHjaj! jIQIplaw'.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> jatlh Qoreq, «vIQorghlaH,
qaH'eng...»<br><br>
I balk at {Qorgh} "take care of, care for" with this meaning.
There<br>
ought to be a better word for "handle (a situation)".
Perhaps<br>
{jIruchlaH} would work, or maybe something with {gheS} could fit in<br>
this context.</blockquote><br>
I hadn't considered the object to be anything like ghu'. I would
usually only Qorgh people, animals, crops or maybe a delicate experiment
that needs attention. I was thinking the object was vajar, Hota'ro'
ghutar je. <juppu'lI' vIQorghlaH, qaH'eng>. Does that seem
patronizing to you? If so I'd move towards QaH or boQ. If the
implied object works better as ghu' for you, then I'd prefer
vu'.<br><br>
- Qov<br><br>
</body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol