[89181] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nuq bop bom: 'ay' loS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Thu Aug 25 10:35:58 2011
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BAY166-W29BC550BCE0BE8341F14DCAA100@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:28:24 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I would think it would be more direct to talk about his face showing pain rather than all this talk about pain at his face's location.
'oy' 'ang qablIj 'e' lutu'chugh vaj Duj Dotlh qelba'taH net Sov.
This editorial suggestion is a bit pushier than the original.
So?
pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
On Aug 25, 2011, at 7:53 AM, Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh wrote:
> pov lutvam; vIlaD 'e' vItIv. tagha' qelqu'meH poH vItu'pu'.
>
> ghItlhpu' Qov, jatlh:
>> Sagh yaS wa'DIch 'ej ngoDmey neH jatlh. "jorpu' nuH HoS 'och. chavpu'
>> nIH HanDogh.
>
> {chav} "achieve" DaHechqu''a'?
>
>> jatlhtaHvIS yaS, Hu'meH vajar poS ghop lo' 'ej quchDajDaq ba'choH.
>
> {quch} "to kidnap"? {quS} 'oHnISlaw'.
>
>> qabDajDaq 'oy' luleghchugh chaq Duj Dotlhmo' 'oH 'e' luHar yaSpu'.
>
> I'm not sure I like {'oH} here without an explicit location to go with
> it. Assuming I'm reading this right ("if the officers saw pain on his
> face, they believed it was due to the ship's status"), {Duj Dotlhmo'
> 'oH} seems incomplete to me stylistically; I would say {Duj Dotlhmo'
> pa' 'oHtaH}, with {pa'} referring back to {qabDajDaq}. But that's me.
>
>> poSDaq tlhe'taHvIS loQ Qom 'ach Qom DeghwI' ghop 'e' leghlaH vajar.
>
> QaQ lo'vam! {Qom}meyvam vIparHa'.
>
>> DIngba' Duj'e' 'a Do' Qapchu'mo' tlham ngab, yoylaw' Hovmey.
>
> {tlham ngeb} "artificial gravity"?
>
> Dajqu' - tugh qaSbogh vajar beqDaj je wanI' vISov vIneH!
>
> QeS 'utlh
>
>
