tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 04 18:08:53 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: ruv Huj
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: ruv Huj
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:14:55 -0700
mujang charghwI':
> pov lutlIj. latlh QIn DalabDI' Qaghmey DaSaH 'e' Da'ang vaj
> > latlh QaghmeyHey qa'ang.
>
> >> bo'DIj letlhDaq <puqwI' DaHoH> jach Heghpu'bogh puq SoS.
> <DaHuplu'be'
> >> 'e' vIHaj. puqwI' DaSaHbe'ba'. bISaH'egh neH.> jatlh. yIttaH neH
> ghot
> >> pumlu'bogh. jatlhbe'. jachbogh SoS'e' leghlaHbe'law'.
> >>
> >> bo'DIj vaS 'el Hoch. quSchaj Sam 'ej ba'. loS. 'el bo'DIj yaS. ja':
> >> <peQam. DaH vangqa' bo'DIjvam. che' Quratlh noHwI' quv.> 'el noHwI'
> 'ej
> >> <peba'> ra'. ba' Hoch.
>
> > naDev bIjatlhchu'ta'. mu'meylIj vItIvqu'.
>
> qatlho'
>
> >> ra' noHwI': <yIjatlh, HubwI'>
> >>
> >> jatlh HubwI': <qalchoH 'Iw chovnatlh 'e' chaw' Hung yaS. ngoDvam
> >> vItobta'. vaj vaHur qama' tlhabmoHlu' 'ej pumHa'lu' 'e' vIpoQneS.>
>
> > Are you using {vaHur qama'} as a title, like {Qugh HoD}? I was
> > confused because this sounded like vaHur's prisoner.
>
> HIja'. jIQochbe'. mISmoH.
>
> >> QIt jangchoH noHwI'. jatlhtaHvIS QeHlaw'. <jIQoch, HubwI'. loQ
> vangHa'
> >> Hung.> loQ yev. <yIQam, vaHur qama'. bIyepHa'mo' 'ej bIchechmo' puq
> >> DaHoH. teHbej ngoDvam, 'ach toblaHchu'be' bo'DIjvam. qatlhabnISmoH.
> DaH
> >> bIpumHa'lu' 'e' vIra'.>
> >>
> >> vaHur mInDu' buS noHwI' mInDu'.
> >>
> >> QIt ghel <bIyaj'a'?>
> >>
> >> qaStaHvIS poH mach loQ wovchoH vaS, 'ach wanI'vam tu' pagh. chaq
> Hov'a'
> >> So'Ha' 'eng 'ej So'qa'.
>
> > machlaHbe' poH. ngajlaH poH.
>
> bIlughba'. ngaj vIlo'nIS.
>
> >> <HIja'> jang vaHur.
> >>
> >> <vaj bo'DIj vaSwIjvo' yIghoS> ra' noHwI'.
> >>
> >> Hoy'chuq vaHur, HubwI' je. Qam vaHur qorDu' 'ej monchoH. Quchba'
> vaSvo'
> >> mej HIvwI', noHwI', Heghpu'bogh puq SoS je. pagh lujatlh 'ej
> qabDu'chaj
> >> pagh lughItlhlu'.
>
> > I'm assuming there is supposed to be a period after {Quchba'}.
> > Also, that last clause looks like "and their faces #0 are
> > written." Is there a missing {-Daq} on {qabDu'chaj}? And do you
> > really want {lu-} here, given that {pagh} is grammatically
> > singular when used as a noun?
>
> bIlughchu'. I had something else before the {lu-} and forgot to change
> it.
>
> >> <maQap!> jatlh vaHur Sey.
> >>
> >> <chaq ...> neH jang HubwI'. vaS'a' mej montaHvIS.
> >>
> >> bo'DIj vaSvo' mej vaHur qorDu'. letlhDaq ghIr 'ej He HeHDaq Qam.
> >> vaHurvaD QItqu' qaSchoH Hoch. vIHlaHbe'law'. bejlaH neH. He
> botlhvo'
> >> ghoS lupwI'. chIjHa'lu'law'. pay' pe'vIl tlhe' 'ej nom He HeH ghoS.
> HeH
> >> juS 'ej vaHur puq ngeQ.
>
> > While I'd like to see it happen, I don't think we've been told
> > that {-qu'} can be used on adverbials. {QItqu'} is probably not
> > available to us, though it makes sense to me, and apparently to
> > you. Then again, I've always wanted {QIt} to be a full-blown
> > verb.
>
> Don't we have {nomqu' yIghoS} or some similar thing? Anyhoo, I have
> occasionally put {-qu'} on some adverbials. I don't like to do it
> often - even if it is legal and understandable, it does seem a bit ...
> weird. I also agree on both {QIt} and {nom} - having adverbials
> instead of verbs makes life difficult sometimes.
>
> >> puqDajDaq qet vaHur. puq porgh mach Qaw'law' lupwI'. Dejpu' roDaj.
> loQ
> >> tlhuHlaH puqDaj 'e' tu' vaHur, 'ach HarlaHbe'. <chay' yIntaH> SIv.
> >> puqDaj qab buS, 'ej yIntaH 'e' tu'. <HIQaH vavoy> tlhup puq.
> ghoghDaj
> >> qat bech. poSchoH nujDaj, 'ej HurghchoH mInDu'Daj. Hegh.
>
> > You already noted the {bech} problem.
>
> bep vIqawHa'.
>
> >> Qaw''eghchoHlaw' vaHur yab. pagh leghlaH. pagh QoylaH. <HIQaH
> vavoy> neH
> >> qawlaH. wovqu'choH Hoch, 'ej poSchoH vaHur mInDu'. nIHDaq Qam
> HubwI'Daj.
> >> 'etDaq 'oHtaH raS. 'o'Daq ba' qorDu'Daj, Hoch bejwI' je. yIntaH
> puqDaj,
> >> 'ej rIQbe'law'. bo'DIj vaSDaq Qamqa' 'e' tu'. mISqu', 'ach 'e' tu'
> pagh.
> >> jatlhlaw' noHwI', vaj 'Ijqa' vaHur.
>
> > I don't think {'ach} works in the middle of an SAO like that. It
> > is two sentences, but no, it's one, but no... I know what you
> > are getting at. You want to note the contrast from expectations,
> > but in doing so, you twist the grammar in a direction I've never
> > seen it twisted before. Perhaps: {mISqu' 'ach mIS 'e' tu' pagh.}
> > Perhaps {mISqu' 'ach ghu'vam tu' pagh.}
>
> I rarely invoke poetic license, but this just may be one of those
> times.
>
> >> jatlhqa' noHwI' quv <bIyaj'a'?>
>
> > majQa'! yIHem!
>
> qatlho'
>
> be'nalwI'vaD lutvam vIDel (DIvI' Hol vIlo'ba'). <yabQel DaSamnISlaw'>
> muja' ...
>
> pagh