[89587] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: chIjwI' tIQ bom: 'ay' wej
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Sun Sep 11 12:53:44 2011
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <BAY166-W38E51B21C274994B33D7A6AA030@phx.gbl>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:40:55 -0400
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Sep 11, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>
> jIjatlh:
>>
>> QaDmo' Hoch Hugh, tam! bIQ wIHutlh,
>> vaj DeS vIchop, 'IwwIj vItlhutlh!
>
> mujang Qov:
>> The third line doesn't flow quite as beautifully…
>
> Agreed, on both points. The first part of that line ends mid-foot
> and I don't
> think it's great metrically, but as you say the meaning is better,
> and I'm
> happy to take the compromise.
I've been reluctant to make substantial suggestions, not wishing to
intrude on your work, but this seems a good time to offer an option:
tam Hughmaj QaD. bIQ'e' wIHutlh
vaj DeS vIchop. 'IwwIj vItlhutlh!
-- ghunchu'wI'
