[90130] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' vaghmaH vagh:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Qov)
Tue Oct 18 20:53:32 2011
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:46:30 -0700
To: tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org
From: Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <BAY166-W289BE2D7BCAC553729E4F6AAE50@phx.gbl>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
lab QeS:
>Qov:
> > pegh, 'a pochtaHvIS lubej Sung puS.
>
>jIH:
> > I'm not saying the usage is wrong, but to me 'op Sung would be better
> > than Sung puS here.
I fixed all the <'op>mey in this part and I hope will catch them in
future parts.
>Qov:
> > wa'maH cheb'a' Qenvob tIje'.[20]
>
>jIH:
> > If it were me I'd say Qenvob wa'maH cheb'a', but I'm not sure if I
> > really find wa'maH cheb'a' Qenvob objectionable. I don't know why.
>
>Qov:
> > I'm hoping to collect a few opinions on this one.
>
>Having had the chance to think about it, I think I can deal with wa'maH
>cheb'a' Qenvob as an apposition. It's still not what I'd naturally say,
>but it really does sound more or less okay. Weird.
I think I'll keep this style of designating amounts of stuff for now,
but I'm open to more opinions,
>jIH:
> > SuQchoHlaHbogh tIr qech vItIvbej!
>
>Qov:
> > lutvam vIQulmeH tej ghItlhmey vIlaD. vI'angDI' bIHagh.
>
>tI'angbej!
bItung 'e' vIpIH 'ach SoHvaD loS wa' pegh. Satlh vIqelDI' wa' potlh
neH vISov. chaq tlhochchu' vuDlIj vuDwIj je, 'a Do' vIqontaHvIS mIghbe'choH.
- Qov
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
