[89936] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' loSmaH cha'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Tue Oct 4 11:01:19 2011
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111002174914.05415680@flyingstart.ca>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:00:38 -0400
To: tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> roSHa'be'law'[21].
jIHvaD qay'be'chu' mu'vam.
> ...'a yebmeyvam[29] lupe'lu'law'.
I wouldn't have been so brave as to choose which plural suffix to use.
I would have avoided the issue by leaving it off entirely.
> "HoD!" jatlh Hung yaS.
Dun. Qaplaw' QoghIj.
> pay' Seng tlhoj HoD. "bIbIrqu'mo', bItujchoHtaHvIS 'oy'qu'. SoHvaD qul rur
> tuj motlh." jatlh vajar.
'Iv bIrmo' ghu'vam DaSIQpu' SoH 'e' vIpIH.
> bIrqu'mo' meQlaw'pu'...
I never considered freezer burn as analogous to frostbite before.
> "chay' logh SutlIj qoDDaq chuchvetlh SuD Daghaj?"
jIloyqang. valqu''a' ghutar? yeb chachmo' chIch chuch lo''a'? tugh vIjanglu=
'ba'.
> [23] You may have noticed that I've been adhering pretty stringently to t=
he
> rule of no aspect suffixes after 'e', =A0even though I think it's a silly
> rule, so this one suddenly struck me.
{X 'e' Y-taHvIS} is the phrasing that HoD Qanqor uses as an example
when arguing that the rule is stupid and doesn't need to be followed.
> Imagine if you were supposed to say
> <'e' tujmoHvIS>. The thought amuses me.
Daj.
> [28] vaj ghunchu'wI', muD Duj chach Daqaw DaneHchugh, BA5390 DaqelnIS.
Ouch.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
