[91391] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Thu Dec 22 12:37:25 2011
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111221100721.04544398@flyingstart.ca>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:36:43 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> 'avwI'pu' bejtaH je latlh 'avwI'pu'.
ghaytan bejchuqqu' je latlhvam.
> "HIja'. DujlIjDaq qaSpu' nuq jay'?=94
wanI' DellaH 'ach jormoHbogh ghu''e' Sovbe'law'.
> "batlh Heghpu' jonwI'ma',..."
chaq teHHa'.
> =93jogh naQvaD Sot tlhIngan wo' Duj 'e' vImaq vIneHbe'mo' vIlI'be'.=94
I'm always bothered by this sort of construction. The {jogh naQvaD}
belongs to the sentence having {vImaq} as its main verb. The sentence
as object separates that connection. It makes immediate and perfect
sense when read, but I have strong doubts that the grammar is correct.
Lawrence's habit of punctuating the first sentence with a period would
highlight the problem.
Instead, I'd have said "Sot tlhIngan wo' Duj, jogh naQvaD 'e'
vImaq..." I might even decide to move the {'e'} to before {jogh}, but
probably not.
> jatlh Sa', =93jonwI'lI' yIchov.=94
>
> jatlh vajar, =93vumqu' 'ej nom vanglaw'. jatlhtaHvIS pIj vIyajbe' 'ach je=
Q."
qIrq 'entepray' jonpIn rur.
> "Do'Ha' pIj 'ay'mey 'ut SuqlaHbe'mo' Qapchu'be' Duj.=94
qIrq 'entepray' rurbe'bej.
> jatlh Sa', =93Dutoy' qu'wI'HomwI', Hota'ro' 'e' vItu'.=94
qu'wI'HomDaj qawqu'ba'.
> "nuvpu' SIghmeH nep 'ej Qaq."
va, DaH nub ngoDHey DISta'bogh Hota'ro'.
> "rap bangDaj. QuS. tIvoqQo'.=94
nepbe'chugh Hoch, qo' Dublu'bej.
toH, chaq bo'Dagh'a' vIlo'. vItchu'chugh vay', SenglaHlaw'.
vaj rut yabwIj vI'angbe'nIS. 'a jIqIDmeH neH chIch jItoj.
> QumwI' Hot Sa'. jang jonwI'. jatlh Sa', =93tlharghDuj bolaghchoHta''a'?=
=94
lagh'a' jay'? tlharghDuj HoDvaD Do'Ha'!
> jatlh jonwI', =93wej, ra'wI', DaH mIw wIwuqlI'.=94
Addressing someone as {ra'wI'} doesn't feel right to me.
> "'ay'mey lI' neH DIpollu' net maS.=94
muj <DIpollu'> moHaq mojaq ghap.
> luHDaj 'uchtaHvIS 'ungya, rurbogh 'oy' SIQtaH 'e' Qub vajar.
Now they're doing triage on the parts of the damaged ship.
> jatlh =93yIjot'eghmoH, HoD. HoD jIH je. le' Dujoymeymaj[76], qar'a'?"
> [76] Wow, having one two letter suffix in there makes it hard to parse,
> doesn't it. Did anyone read Dujoymeymaj correctly on the first pass?
I did, but the footnote marker butted up right against it made me read
it with deliberate care. It interfered enough that I'm not sure
whether I would have had a problem without it. It wasn't until I saw
the question that I realized it could have been an issue.
> Duj chu' SuqmeH HoD vay' potlh SovnIS pagh HoHnIS.
loStaHvIS chaq HIjmeH chaw'mey boSchoHlaH.
> [82] I'm not sure whether Star Trek physics allows things to rust in spac=
e,
> the General is that ignorant, or she's using a metaphor. I think the last.
> *I* know that rusting requires oxygen.
In the Voyager episode "The 37s" they encounter a truck that has
apparently rusted during several hundred years of drifting in space.
In the real world,
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=3D1064 says
that it's possible but VERY slow. Earth's upper atmosphere is highly
oxidizing, so things in low orbit need to deal with it.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
