tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 01 18:25:58 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: HaghmoHwI'Hom

>Well, you deliberately asked for plural correctors, so whether or not I'm
>still official, here goes...
>I actually still don't understand this too well; maybe it'll make sense as
>I go.
law'bej QaghmeywIj
>>wamwI'pu' mej net wuq cha' nuv taQ
>You have here a subject on a sentence with "net" as the object; I'm not sure
>that makes sense.  I consider "net Sov" to be something very close (if not
>identical) to "'e' Sovlu'".  That is, there's an indefinite
>"one/they/folks" who are the subject.  "Two weird people/one [both
>subjects?] decided that he/she/it/they leave hunters"?  Do you mean "two
>weird people decided to go out hunting"?  Maybe "wam 'e' luwuq cha' nuv
>taQ" or "wammeH ruch 'e' luwuq cha' nuv taQ" would be better?
<wamwI'pu' moj 'e' luwuq cha' nuv taQ> vIHech
>chalHa'DIbaH wamghachvaD Ha'DIbaH luje'
"for the benefit of sky-animal hunting they feed an animal".  OK,
sky-animal works okay for "bird".  But if you mean "they fed an animal for
bird-hunting", perhaps a purpose clause with -meH would be more
appropriate.  "chalHa'DIbaHmey wammeH Ha'DIbaH luje'" perhaps?  I'm not
sure I understand the significance of feeding an animal to hunt birds.
<They BOUGHT an animal for bird-hunting> vIHech
<dog> 'oHnIS
>>ngemvaD latlh wamwI'pu tlha' chaH Ha'DIbaH je 'ej wamchoH
>"For the forest, they and the animal followed another's hunters and started
>hunting."  Oh, I see, this makes more sense now.  Maybe "ngemDaq" for "to
>the forest".  Not sure if "other hunters" should be "latlh wamwI'pu'" or
>"wamwI'pu' latlh" or something else (assuming that's what you want to say).
mu'tlheghvam Dayajchu'pu'
>>  mujqu' vay'
>>  pagh jonta' Ha'DIbaHvam QIp
>>  lI'Ha'qu' 'oH jay' pagh wIjenmoHHa'
>"...this stupid animal [deliberately] caught nothing.  It's useless,
>dammit.  We *lower nothing."  OK, I give up.  In CK, Okrand implies that
>"useless" is better done as "lI'be'", but that's debatable.  "-Ha'" always
>comes right after the verb, not after the "-moH".  But I don't get what it
>has to do with anything...  Help?
<jonpu'> 'oHnIS
<Ha'DIbaH jenmoHghachmaj qab> Hech <wIjenmoHHa'>
qavummoHpu'mo' jItlhIjneS 'ach jIqeqnIS
'ej SupwI' tlhIH neH
    <You are my only resource> mugh'a' Dochvam pagh <You are only my resource>
    wa'DIch vIHech
wa'wIj SaH wa' tlhIngan 'ej ghaH jIH 'e' vIHar
>Hope you don't mind the pedantry, but you did ask...
qarqu' 'ej vItlhobqu'neS

Back to archive top level