[91151] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' HutmaH wej:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Mon Dec 5 13:05:08 2011
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111123215555.05189508@flyingstart.ca>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:04:32 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> ...vavDaj qawmoHmo' jotqa'chu'be'.
vay' vItu'be''a'? qatlh pay' 'eSSIm vav qelchoH lut?
> =93murI' DujwIj neH..."
ram'a' Duj? <murI' neH DujwIj> vIchup.
> "...yuQvam pawlI' yuQjIjQa' Duj.=94 jatlh Mahoun.
> =93qatlh naDev ghoS yuQjIjDIvI'?"
wa' Dol lu'oSba' cha' pong. pong pIm maSlaw' nuv pIm.
> "motlh naDev ghoS pagh 'ej pay' SaH SoH,
> DIvI', cholbogh tlhIngan Duj je,=94 jatlh 'eSSIm.
If {SoH} weren't the first in the list, I'd have no problem with the
missing {Su-} on {SaH}. Casual speech is full of such minor errors.
But I think she'd already have the second person in mind when she got
to the verb and would have said it properly.
> =93jISovbe'. DIvI' wIboqbe'pu'."
{wIboqbe'pu'} makes me wonder what subtlety of meaning I might be
missing. I'd be less uneasy with {wIboqpu'be'}.
> QIpbe' Mahoun. mej 'ej pagh jatlh.
tlhInganpu' muSpu'. DaH tlhIngan tIgh lajchoH. vaDbej HoDvam yab.
> Duj Segh loy 'e' nIDtaHvIS HoD...
The "no aspect suffix on the second verb" rule annoys me primarily
because I can't see it broken without thinking about how annoying it
is.
> 'ach qarmoH be'. yuQjIjQa' Duj 'oH.
Huj. pong pIm lumaSlaw' ghaH, De'wI'Daj je.
> Hur tuj ghoS 'eSSIm 'ej SomrawDu'Daj rotlhmoHmeH mI'choH...
...'ej mI'taHvIS loQ mo'Daj wIghojchoHlaw'.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
