tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 05 20:06:39 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: story, part 3
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: story, part 3
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 96 22:08:23 UT
December 04, 1996 10:09 PM, jatlh Deborah Kay:
> lut 'ay' wejDIch vIlI'. (I know there are some rough spots here.
> Grammarians, thank you for your suggestions and corrections. I read them
all.
> SuStel, only seven parts to go after this!)
qay'be'!
> pawpa' jajlo', vem be'nI'pu' 'ej Sutchaj tuQmoH.
It's funny you should use the word {tuQmoH} . . . !
> vavchajvaD ja'. chaHvaD betleHmey chu' tajmey chu' je nob.
> "reH retlhrajDaq tIpol," jatlh vavchaj.
Hmmm . . . "Always keep them next to you" does sound a little strange, but
then again, that's exactly what he means, in a technical sort of way . . .
I'm probably just being paranoid.
> vItpu' DareS. qaStaHvIS jaj chaHvaD jach vav.
> qet chaH 'ej Suv 'ej QI' Dup paq lulaD 'ej qetqa' 'ej Suvqa' .
> leS 'e' chaw'be vav.
> nom vavchaj lob be'nI'pu' 'ach reH belHa' vavchaj.
{lulob}.
> luyonmoHlaHbe' puqbe'Daj.
> "yIruchqa'," jatlhtaH vavchaj.
> ghIrpu'DI' juHHov, vaj leS ghaH 'e' chaw' vavchaj.
{leS chaH}. Aha! That's a good way to say "When the sun has set"!
> Hur raQHey lucher.
This means "They set up what seems to be an outside military camp." There's
no reason I can see to assume that a military camp and a two-woman camp in the
wilderness have anything to do with each other. What you tried to do is use
the {-Hey} suffix to try to make this connection. It doesn't. (Neither would
{-qoq}.) I'd just say {HurDaq QongDaq cher} "They set up beds outside." In
cases where there is a fire, I might say {HurDaq qul retlhDaq je QongDaq
cher}.
> Doy'qu' ghaH 'ej SoplaHbe'.
{chaH}, not {ghaH}.
> chaHvaD mopmey lang nob vavchaj 'ej bIrmo' ram taDbej be'nI'pu'.
> nIteb mejmoH vav.
"Father causes them to leave alone." This is fine, but it doesn't match your
English exactly. That was more like {mej vav vaj mob chaH}.
> Hovmey bingDaq jatlhchuq be'Hompu'.
I don't know if {jatlhchuq} makes any sense ("speak each other"), but we know
that {ja'chuq} does.
> jatlh pe'lora, "'oy' porghwIj naQ."
> jatlh velqa, "jI'oy' je.
> 'ach nuHoSghajchoHba' 'oy'maj."
{-moH}, not {-choH}. {nuHoSghajmoHba'}.
> "SuvwI'pu' DImoj wIneHmo', nupar vav 'e' DaQub'a'?" tlhob pe'lora.
> "ghobe', numuSHa'bej. vav DavoqnIS," pe'lora qawmoH velqa.
> ram muDDaq cholchuq benI'pu' ej Qong.
> nIbchu' Hoch jaj. QIt qaS DIS.
> puqbe'DajvaD jatlh vav, "SuvwI' yIn qelbogh Sovna' boghaj.
> batlh Suvangmo' jIHem. MajQa'.
Typo!
> DaH QI''ampaS la'a'vaD Dochmey boSovbogh bo'angnIS.
Perhaps {laH} would be a better word than {Doch}. {Doch} is so . . .
ordinary.
> la'a' vISuchmo' DaHjaj SuleSlaH."
>
> mon vengDaq leng vav pe'lora velqa je.
> QI' 'ampaS ghoS 'ej la''a'vaD jatlh.
Either make {QI' 'ampaS} one or two words. Above, you made it one. I think
two works better.
> "SuvwI'pu' mojmeH DuSaQlijDaq chIDrup puqbe'pu'wI'.
I really think that {chID} refers to "admit" as in "I admit my mistakes." In
fact, that's exactly where I've seen it. TKW p. 212: {QaghmeylIj tIchID,
yIyoH}.
I'd probably say this as {SuvwI'pu' mojmeH DuSaQlIjDaq HaDrupchoH
puqbe'pu'wI'.}
> mon 'ej jatlh la''a', "naDev HaD pagh be'."
> "vISov, 'ach yapbej Sovchaj. tIyu' 'ej manghompu' DawIvbogh Suv
> be'Hompu'wI'."
That typo there threw me for a minute. You meant to write {mangHom}, but I
though you meant {mangghom} until I looked up your translation.
> "not Qu'mey vInobbogh ta'bej be'Hompu'," Qub la''a'.
> IlHa'taHvIS, vavchajvaD jatlh la''a',"jIQochbe'."
Had to turn on a different font to read that one. You missed the initial
glottal stop on {'IlHa'taHvIS}.
> "wa'leS vIqem," jang DareS.
majQa', Deborah!
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96930.7