Re: weekend-wIj'e'

[WestphalWz@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/24/1999 10:14:27 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
aranders@netusa1.net writes:

<< lopno'Hey Dellaw'mo' Hoch, wanI'wIj vIDelnISlaw' je jIH.
 
 vaghHu' nay be'nalwI' SoS loDnI' puqbe'.  tlhoghtay bejmeH qorDu'wIj,
 "Louisville"-Daq wIleng.  ngajbe' leng 'ach tIqqu'be'.  manabchu' 'ej
 mapawDI' tugh tagh tay.
 
 tlhetlhtaHvIS tay, ngojchoH puqloDwI'.  Sor Hap quSDaq QebDaj chuSmoH.
 ba'taHvIS loQ nogh.  tay buSHa'.  muberghmoH.  jIH be'nalwI' jojDaq 
 ba'taH.  jItlhup; vIjatlh yItamtaH!  'ach ghaH tlhopDaq quS 'o' mupmeH
 QebDaj lo'qa' 'ej chuSqa'.  nom jItuvHa'choH.  nItlhDajvo' QebDaj
 vIteq.  SaQruplaw' 'ach DuQtaHvIS mInDu'wIj tambej.  jIQay'be'meH Daq
 tam ghaH be'nalwI' je.  Hopmo' ghaH loQ munuQbe'choH.
 
 rInDI' tay, naychu'DI' 'ej Sawchu'DI' SIQwI'pu', qach pImDaq wIjaH.
 pa' maSop 'ej majatlh.  QoQ muchlu' 'ach wej mI'ta'mo' SIQwI'pu', 
 mI'qangbe'law' latlhpu'.  'ey QoQ 'ej qaStaHvIS cha' rep nargh mI'meH
 'eb law'.  "Rumba" "cha-cha" joq DIta' wIneH.  mI'nISqu' SIQwI'pu';
 chaHvaD 'e' pon vay'.  vaj wa'logh nIteb mI'DI' chaH, 'ej mI'DI' 
 naywI' vavDaj je, tugh Hoch mI'rup.
 
 mI'wI' Daq wIghoS jIH be'nalwI', 'ach mamI'choHlaHpa' SIbI' choH QoQ
 jay'!  chung QoQ 'ej chuSqu'choH.  HurghchoH pa'.  qaStaHvIS wej rep 
 "swing" neH muchlu' jay'!  wejpuH.  mamI'bej, 'ach vItIvbe'chu'.
 
 lopno'Daq Sopta'DI' puqloDwI', paq laDchoH.  raSDaq ba'taH 'ej laDtaH.
 QoQ buSHa'.  latlhpu' buSHa'.  pagh nuQmo' jIbepbe'.
 
 mejtaHvIS SIQwI'pu', chaHDaq pagh wIjaD.  tIr chIS wIbaHbe'.  Dalchu'.
 
 rInDI' lopno' mebpa'mey wIghoS.  pa' be'nalwI' vav SoS je DItlhej. 
 chaH tlhej je be'nalwI' be'nI' cha' puqbe'pu'.  qaStaHvIS wej rep 
 "swim" puqpu' be'nalwI' je.  tlhoS ngengHom yoS wI'ellaHbe', ngaQmo' 
 lojmItmey.  ngaQHa'Qo' loHwI'pu', 'ach tlhoy' wItoS net chaw'.
 
 ghungqa' puqpu'.  choS "church picnic" ghoS HochHom 'ach pa'Daq
 jIratlh jIH 'ej jIDum.  jaj veb juHDaq wIchegh. >>
================================
ghunchu'wI' lutvammo' jIghelnIS, jatlh:

1) << lopno'Hey Dellaw'mo' Hoch, wanI'wIj vIDelnISlaw' je jIH.>>
Is the subject of the sentence {Hoch} an inherent plural, thus being treated 
grammatically as a singular, or should {luDellaw'mo'} have been written here?

2)  "Louisville"-Daq wIleng
Is {leng} a verb that can optionally take {-Daq} or should ghunchu'wI' have 
written {maleng}?

3) ngajbe' leng 'ach tIqqu'be'
{'ach} means "on the other hand, but, however."  I am having trouble getting 
it to feel right between two negative verbs for one subject.

4) jIH be'nalwI' jojDaq ba'taH.
Even when using a spatial word such as {joj}, I still use {je} after the 
final noun of a series, producing {jIH be'nalwI' je}.  Where is the canon 
source for not following this?

5) jItlhup; vIjatlh yItamtaH!
I thought this should be {jIjatlh:  yItam'eghmoH}.  First, {jIjatlh} instead 
of {vIjatlh} because the word is an utterance, not an object of the verb 
{jatlh}.  Second, {yItamtaH} implies that the child is already being quiet 
and the command-giver is ordering him to keep on being quiet.  {yItam'eghmoH} 
has been given to us as canon for "Quiet yourself!"

6) Daq tam ghaH be'nalwI' je.
Does {tam} require the object to be plural?  Of course, {Daq} does not need 
to be made specifically plural.  Klingon nouns never have to have the type 2 
suffix to indicate plurality.  OTOH, if the object {Daq} is not intended to 
be plural, the verb {tam} should read {lutam}, due to the plural subject.

7)  rInDI' tay, naychu'DI' 'ej Sawchu'DI' SIQwI'pu', qach pImDaq wIjaH.
Amusing that our Klingon language word for "celebrant" is {SIQwI'}, for here 
it gets used for celebrants of a marriage ceremony just as it would have been 
used for celebrants of a Klingon ceremony involving pain.  My problem is with 
{qach pImDaq wIjaH}.  Does {jaH} arbitrarily allow for {-Daq} or should 
ghunchu'wI' have used {majaH}?

8) mI'nISqu' SIQwI'pu'; chaHvaD 'e' pon vay'.
A little suffix like {-qu'} can radically change the meaning of a verb!  I 
understand this sentence to mean:  "Somebody persuades for them that the 
celebrants must dance {-qu'}."  Actually, I don't understand this sentence 
very clearly.

9) tugh Hoch mI'rup.
"Subjects were ready to dance all the dances?"  Could be.  I just would have 
expected {tugh mI'rup Hoch} and I was surprised not to get it.

10)  mI'wI' Daq wIghoS jIH be'nalwI', 
I was expecting to have {je} at the end of this phrase, too.

11)  mejtaHvIS SIQwI'pu', chaHDaq pagh wIjaD.
I don't feel so good about {jaD}.  I prefer {baH}.

12)  rInDI' lopno' mebpa'mey wIghoS. 
I asked the list about this and got no answer several months ago.  KGT gives 
us the word {mebpa'mey} for "hotel."  Probably works for "motel" and "guest 
rooms" just as well.  The question was:  Is {mebpa'mey} one singular noun or 
a combination of the nouns {meb+pa'} and the pluralizing suffix {-mey}?  I 
was trying to find out if I should use {wIghoS} as ghunchu'wI' has or if I 
should use {DIghoS}.  Still wondering.

13) pa' be'nalwI' vav SoS je DItlhej. 
>From this sentence I get "We accompanied my wife, [someone's] father, and 
[someone's] mother there."  If ghunchu'wI' were trying to convey "my wife's 
father and mother," don't we need to say {be'nalwI' vav be'nalwI' SoS je}?

14) jaj veb juHDaq wIchegh. 
I remember this problem at qep'a loSDIch.  What has been the solution?  Is 
{-Daq} optional with {chegh} or should ghunchu'wI' have written {machegh}?

Thanks in advance for comments helping me to understand the correct answers 
to the problems I have posed above.

peHruS