[94067] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh wejmaH wej: pumDI'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Mon Jul 16 02:16:46 2012
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:16:31 +1000
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120710151440.07a47840@flyingstart.ca>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
ghItlhpu' Qov, jatlh:
> 233: pumDI' lojmIt
Were you aiming for the literal-metaphorical duality with this title? If
so, it's very neatly done - majQa'!
taH:
> joy'wI' pa'vo' ghoS vajar, ghutar je.
So qImyal doesn't have a dedicated joy'meH pa'? I am disappoint. :)
> SaH QeHbogh mang law'[359].
Hm. I see your quandary here.
Personally I think negh law' is fine in the same way as nIm law' is fine.
Without context the only sensible reading of nIm law' is "much milk", not
"many milks", so I have no problem with negh law'. With that said, mangpu'
law' has a nice connotation of "angry warriors everywhere" so I think it
would work too. I'm not a fan of mang law', but I can't really articulate
why.
(poD vay')
> pa'vam lu'elmeH lotlhwI'pu', lojmItvetlh ghorlaw'pu'.
*lu*ghorlaw'pu', qar'a'?
> DaH latlh lojmIt lughorlI' 'ach lojmItvam HoS law' lojmIt wa'DIch HoS
> puS. baS naQmey, nISwI'mey je lo'taH.
The final sentence here feels a little stranded. I'd put lughormeH in
front of it to retain the connection to the lughorlI' of the previous
sentence.
> bIt vajar. Hung patmey law' ghaj qImyal jatlh qaH'eng,
Is this meant to be a direct quote or an indirect one? If indirect I'd
expect to see 'e' jatlh rather than just jatlh alone.
> 'ej mejpu'mo' qaH'eng QaHlaHbe'lI'. jatlh vay', =ABpujlaw lojmIt Dung.
{pujlaw'}Daq qaghwI' Dalo'be'pu'.
(poD vay')
> pay' vay' qaw vajar: not Hota'ro' ngaghmeH tlhobta' vajar.
I'm not sure I like the {X-meH tlhob} construction; it feels a lot like
an Englishism, "he asked to X" rendered directly into Klingon. It might
just be my instincts, of course; I'd've gone with ngagh 'e' tlhob.
Also, as it stands, it reads as "vajar requested to never have sex with
Hota'ro'". Is that what you intended, or should {not} be in front of
tlhobta' instead (so "vajar never requested to have sex with Hota'ro'")?
> vajar SaHqu'pu' 'ej puqchaj boghmoH neHbejpu'.
As ghunchu'wI' pointed out not long ago, since verb-neH is in many ways
parallel to X 'e' Y, an aspect suffix may not be able to appear on neH
in this kind of construct. I'll leave that up to you, though.
> =ABHota'ro'!=BB jatlh vajar, =ABDuveltaHvIS jaghlI' 'Iw
> bI'IH!=BB
vajar, you silver-tongued devil, you!
> jatlh vajar, =ABqa'chajDaq lunabtaH[360].
We know from KGT that qa' takes -pu' in the plural: ghe'torvo' narghDI'
qa'pu' "when spirits escape from Gre'thor".
> qung veghchoH negh, HoHbeHtaHvIS nuHmeychaj.
Huzzah! -beH gets a look in.
> =ABHa'!=BB jatlh Hota'ro' 'ej jachbogh negh ghoghmey lutlha'.
Just tlha': ghoghmey is explicitly plural. You can always use chaH to be
unambiguous, and because without it one could interpret this as being
Hota'ro' alone who followed the screaming voices, I think it'd be best
to use it here.
> pa' lu'elDI' Dachlaw' qImyal. pa' DojmoH Dochmey wagh.
Ugh... if this were in English I'd tell you to buy a thesaurus. :P "The
expensive things" seems a bit blah. You don't like 'aH "paraphernalia"?
> tlhoy'meyDaq may'mey tIQ cha' tlhImmey, nagh beQmey je. vajar retlhDaq
> SaH Qo'noS yuQ 'oSbogh Hew. bIQ'a' ghargh'a'mey DubDu'Daq lIghtaH yuQ
> moQ. bochbogh nagh qIj HotmeH yev vajar.
ghu' DaDelchu'. 'IH 'ej Doj 'ej yabwIjDaq vInajlaHchu'!
QeS 'utlh
=
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
