tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 11 18:52:19 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' cha'vatlh cha'maH: raSmey lughorlu'taH

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

At 13:54 '?????' 7/11/2012, you wrote:

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Qov <[email protected]> wrote:
> 220
> raSmey lughorlu'taH

Do'Ha'. DaH morghwI' ghom boqbe'bej HungpIn tlhach.


batlh potlh law' raS potlh puS.


> tlhoy' yIbmeyvo' narghchoH SIp.

to'vam nap vIpIHpu'.


'enteprayDaq SIp SuQ chu'laH'a' meH?


> SIp SuQmo' puQbej vajar.

So''eghbe' SIpvam'e'. nom ghovlu'mo', junlu' SIbI' net nIDlaH.

> SIghbe'meH SIp,
> tlhuHDaj polchoH 'ej mInDu' SoQchoHmoH. "SIQ!" jatlh ghogh. "yaHraj pol! SIp 
> wIchu'Ha'ta'DI' bong wa' wInoplaw'. wItI'lI'!"

maj. to' lupIHpu' je latlh 'ej lu'ompu'.


HIja'. lo' law' lojmItmey poSmoHtaHvIS HubmeH patmey chu'Ha'.


> tachvo' QaDmoHwI' DIr yIQ
> ghomHa' vay'. qabDaj QanmeH wa' lo' vajar. jatlhqa' ghogh, "Qobbe' SIp.
> vo'wI' neH 'oH. may' SIp wIchu'Ha'ta'." majQa', chamwI'pu'.

meHDaq moghchoH ya 'e' vIleghlaw'. may' SIp Qotlhlu'pu' 'ej ngeplaHbe'
meH SeHlaw.


bIlugh!  vIleghlaH je.


> raS 'emDaq
> tortaH vajar. Qeqrupqa'. chuS SIp, ghaywI'mey veghtaHvIS 'ach voQmoHbe'.

I thought there was evidence that {voQ} was transitive, but I can't find it.
And I thought there was evidence that ghor swung both ways, but apaarently you can only ghor something. 


> pay' lojmIt vegh nagh rurbogh jan. vo'meH jaDlaw'ta' vay'.
>
> "jorwI'!" jatlh vay'. jorwI'Hey ghoS ghutar, woH 'ej lojmItDaq jaDqu'.

jaqqu'!


ghovmo', jorbe' 'e' Sov.


(yIt'a'? qet'a'? nom ghoS'a'? QIt ghoS'a'? ghu' vIyajchu'meH
yapbe'law' <ghoS> neH.)


bIbep 'e' vIqIm.  {jorwI'HeyDaq Sup ghutar} vItam.


> ghutar ghop mejDI' tlhIch tlhuDchoH. DaH voQmoHbogh SIp larghlaH vajar. SIp
> tlhuDwI' 'oH jan'e'. pa' HIvchoH 'avwI' ghom chu'. nISwI' beH qeng 'ej
> qabDu'chaj QantaH mIvmey, SIp botbogh janmey'e' je. qabDu'chaj 'angbe'.

quv Hutlh HoHbogh tlhIngan 'ach qabDaj 'angbe'bogh. va, QaDmoHwI' DIr
tuQtaH 'Iv?


rut muj vIttlheghmey.


> Hoch
> lojmItmey vegh 'e' lunID, SIp tlhuDwI'mey jaDtaHvIS. lojmIt botmeH Dup
> pIHbe'ba'pu'. vIDbogh tlhInganpu' chech pIHpu' 'ach mangghom lutu'.

({lutu'} looks weird, y'know?)


vISov. yoylaw'


> lojmItmey veghtaHvIS negh wa'DIch, HIv 'ej luchchaj jon qIQwI'pu'.

You might consider moving {qIQwI'pu'} immediately after {HIv} to help
clarify that the {veghbogh negh} is on the *receiving* end of the
attack. Then you might need to replace {luchchaj} with {negh luch} to
reclarify the immediate past owners of the {luch}.


jIQochbe'.


> lujlI'
> to' 'e' tlhojDI' negh, bachchoH, vaj bachchoH je qIQwI'pu', 'ej jorwI'chaj
> lutlh jaD. HeghlI'bogh mang bep QoylaH vajar. chuSqu' tIHmey, muD DuQtaHvIS
> 'ej tatmey larghlaH vajar.

pIwmey DelmeH, lut laDlu'bogh QaQ law' lut bejlu'bogh QaQ puS.

> wewchoH raSDaj 'ej tujchoH, qIpDI' nISwI' tIHmey.

jumlaw' <raSDaj>, 'ach Qap. chaq loQ <ghaH tlhop raS> vImaS jIH.


vaj vIchoHpu'.


> vajar pu' tIH ghovpu' vay' 'ej ghaHDaq QeqchoHta'.

toH! "Chekhov's gun" mojpu' vajar pu'. jIHaghqu'.
And all for what I believed to be a terminology error, but later found was perfectly acceptable usage. This story would be a lot less interesting if I hadn't sent it in installments, forcing me to fight on all the battlefields I had chosen.
(Oh today in the airplane I was listening to "Learn Italian" podcasts and they gave the Italian for "and they lived happily ever after." I'm fairly sure that the Klingon version of that is something like, "And they all died honourable deaths." 


> bachtaHvIS vajar, Dup--may'vam Dup, qIQwI'pu' Dup, qImyal Dup je--qeltaH.
> tetlI'bogh raS DoHchoH 'ach rInchoH may'. bachbe'choHpu' Hoch. buQbe'choHpu' 
> qImyal qaS.

**
QaS

> HeDtaH HochHom. Heghpu' 'op. lojmItDaq Sum QottaH HeghlI'bogh
> mang.

**
lojmIt SumDaq


I could swear I looked that usage up in HolQeD. Sum is tricky:

WM: So, could that deictic anchor be shifted by using an indirect object?
    Like if I wanted to say, "You are near the table," could I say {SoHvaD
    Sum raS}?

MO: No. You'd use {-Daq}: {SoHDaq Sum raS}. This throws the orientation
    away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener
    (marked, stated: "at you, where you are"). But you don't always
    need to state this overtly. Context is critical. For example:

    {qagh largh SuvwI' ghung. Sum qagh 'e' Sov.}
The real problem with that sentence is the extra verb QottaH. I've just worked twelve hours at altitude on five hours sleep, so I'm not going to fix it now. Maybe I want lojmIt retlhDaq 

lojmItDaq Sum HeghlI'bogh mang.


> Dung bej. vajarDaq QeqtaH mInDu'Daj.

{Dung bej} came through as an idiomatic "lie on her back", so I didn't
notice the near-contradiction at first. She's "watching" upward, yet
"aiming" her eyes at vajar. It's not a big deal, and it isn't really a
contradiction. The metaphoric {Qeq mIn} phrasing suggests to me that
you recognized it, but in case you didn't I figured I'd point it out.
I figured {Dung/bIng bej} as an idiom that was not interpreted as bejtaH. I'd think a corpse could Dung bej, just as a headless corpse in English could be face up. 


> tlhuH 'e' nID 'ach HughDaj tebmo'
> 'Iw, ghagh neH.

There are many places in the story where {teb} is used in the sense of
"a container is-filled-with a substance". I think I only found it
worth mentioning once, when it was used shortly afterward in the
different sense of "a container is-filled-by a person". I don't think
the first sense is something we've seen in canon, and I think at least
some of the places the story uses it that way it could be replaced
with {bot} or {waQ}. I'm now making a one-time blanket mention of it,
and you can decide whether or not it's something to worry about.


This is a sort of thing that I do want to fix. This one can be
'ach 'Iwmo' buy'mo' HughDaj.
I went through with search and replace and used an almost amusing variety of strategies to repair the others. I also looked for problems with ghor used intransitively, which was a pain, because I use the noun ghor a lot. But yes, anyone, any word that I'm using in contradiction to canon, tell me and I will fix it everywhere. 


> be' ghaH. mIv tuQbe'taH, 'ach chaq teqpu'. jagh, jup ghap
> ngu'laHbe' vajar. ghaytan wo' toy'qang. tlhuHlaHmeH mang DopDaq tlhe'moH
> vajar. be' Dub 'elpu' nISwI' tIH 'e' leghlaH. mang ro qoD Qaw'pu'. Heghpa'
> wejlogh tlhuH neH. jatlh qIQwI', "bong ghaHDaq bach may' qochDaj 'eltaHvIS.
> Qu'maj ngeDmoHpu'."

rInbe'chu' Qu'.


bInepbe'.


> Hegh tlhIngan mang 'e' pay' vajar. chaq 'eb ghajchugh
> qIQ 'e' maS.
Hey, you forgot to point and laugh at this one. I'm really trying not to do it. You missed it because I didn't use the perfective, perhaps. It's still wrong. 


'ach pIpyuS pach DaSop DaneHchugh pIpyuS puS DaghornIS. lomvo'
> nuHmey, latlh luch lI' je boS qIQwI'.

wa' yay luchav. taghbej noH, DaH 'e' Sov Hoch.


che'jaj may' Hem. :-)
- Qov 

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

Back to archive top level