tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 02 12:57:23 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: wamwI' yIn pem




On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, Marc Ruehlaender wrote:

nom jabbI'IDlIj vIjangbe'mo' jItlhIj. 
 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> wamwI' yIn pem
> 
> vem pem 'ej vem wamwI'
> chalHeH DungDaq toStaHvIS pemHov nuHDaj QapbeHmoH
> pemHovvaD vanDaj nobpu'DI' Ha'DIbaH wamlu'bogh SamlI'meH
> 	tlheD 'ej Dechbogh HatlhDaq leng
> ----------------------------------------------------

maj.

> ----------------------------------------------------
> leng 'ay' wa'DIch tagh 'ej He Doq wIv
> HuD'a' 'el
> Doy'moH Qu'

As a stylistic matter, I would add {-choH}.

> Ha'DIbaH tu'lu'be'

To me, this implies that there are no animals to be found (by anyone).
(Which is maybe which you meant.)
If there are animals there, but the hunter simply doesn't find them, I 
would say, {Ha'DIbaH tu'be'.}

> nagh Deb 'el
> SeynISmo' jach 'IwDaj
> 
> lam Deb 'el
> tuvmo' popDaj 'oH quvmoHbogh wamtaHghach

<-'e'> Dachel 'e' DalIj.  I would also insert {ghaH} to indicate {'oH} is 
not the object of {quvmoHbogh}:

tuvmo' popDaj 'oH ghaH quvmoHbogh wamtaHghach'e'.

> ----------------------------------------------------

> he comes into the stone desert
> he gets almost impatient

At the qep'a', we made a list of adverbials we would like to see Marc 
Okrand come up with.  I think "almost" or "nearly" was on that list.

But in this case, I think you can say, {loQ boHchoH.} (He becomes a little 
impatient.)

~mark, did you ever forward our "wish list" to Okrand?

> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> Sayu': "'el" lo'lu'taHvIS "-Daq" lo'nISlu''a'

TKD p28 says some verbs include locative notions in their meanings and 
gives {ghoS} as an example.  I suspect {'el} is one of those verbs which 
do not require the locative.

> tugh }:-} jIghItlhqa'

maj.  lutlIj vItIv.

> 			"Dochlangan" Marc

yoDtargh



Back to archive top level