tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 07 08:54:06 2012

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH chorgh: <ghIqtal>

Robyn Stewart ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

At 02:02 07/01/2012, you wrote:



Qov:
> latlh raSDaq Sup ghutar, jatlh "wot'av, torgh puqloD! batlh qelDI' tlhIngan, lumbe'. Do'Ha' DaHjaj betleHwIj'e' vInaw'laHbe'. wa' munojqangchugh vay', DaH qaHay'."
Does {Hay'} take an object? I thought it was one of those verbs where all the participants are in the subject (like {ghom}), but I didn't find any canon evidence to back up my intuition.
Oh that's interesting. I read the English before the attributed text and when you said, "all the participants are in the subject" I was agreeing. I would write Hay' ghutar wot'av je. qaHay' seems okay to me, but so does maHay' and that may be safer. I'll change it. 


Qov:
> chuSqu'choH SopwI'pa'.
Is it the {SopwI'pa'} itself that's beginning to be noisy, or something inside it? This is just a stylistic preference, but I'd have written {chuSqu'choH SopwI'pa' qoD} or {SopwI'pa'Daq chuSqu'choHlu'}. {chuSqu'choH SopwI'pa'} sounds to me like the mess hall itself is making noise. (This may very well be an acceptable way of saying that something inside the mess hall is making noise, like it is in English, but I'm not sure.) 

Compare:
{chuSqu'choH jonta' pa'; Qom tlhoy'mey}
{jonta' pa'Daq chuSqu'choHlu'; yay lulop jonwI'pu'}
I understand the distinction, but for me it's not one that is worth complicating the sentence for. If it were a prefix change or made the sentence simpler, I'd see doing it. 


Maybe I'm taking things too literally.


Here I think so.


Qov:
> qevDaq chen gho chIm 'ej 'oHDaq QamtaH ghutar, wot'avHey[78].
> [78] Any comments on this as "the guy who seemed to be wot'av"?

DIp 'oHbe' {qev}'e'.  {ghom'a'} DaHechlaw'.


wa'logh teH. HolQeDDaq DIp mojpu'. muyevmoH je.


wot'avHey vIyaj 'ej vIlaj.


maj.


Qov:
> jatlh Hota'ro', "nach DopDaq rIQ. So' jIbDaj."

Qov:
> "lu' qaH," jatlh 'avwI' 'ej vay' rI'. loSmeH 'avwI' retlhDaq chobDaq [161] Qam vajar. tugh paw wochbogh 'avwI' tIn. SopwI'pa'vaD jatlh vajar, "Ha'! Hota'ro', HItlhej!" 
> [161] Who requires a je here? I feel happy without it.
Do we have any canon of two {-Daq}ed nouns side by side like this? The entire sentence is somewhat ambiguous and confusing to to me. Is the {chob} next to the {'avwI'}, or is {vajar} (who is standing in a {chob}) next to the {'avwI'}? Is the {'avwI'} also inside the {chob}? What's the subject of {loSmeH}? I think it's {vajar}, but initially I thought it was {'avwI'} until I got to the end of the sentence. If it is {vajar}, I'd write {loSmeH vajar, 'avwI'...}. 

Ah. It's loSmeH, 'avwI' retlhDaq chobDaq Qam vajar.
I'll changed it to, {chobDaq loSmeH vajar, 'avwI' retlhDaq QamchoH} then changed it again to {chobDaq loS vajar. 'avwI' retlhDaq QamchoH}.
Evasion is one way to get around these things, and I use it in English, too. :-)
Many thanks for the feedback. I hope you're enjoying the story at least a fraction as much as I'm enjoying writing it.
- Qov 

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level