[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' HutmaH wej: <vav pegh>

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> ...vavDaj qawmoHmo' jotqa'chu'be'.

vay' vItu'be''a'? qatlh pay' 'eSSIm vav qelchoH lut?

> “murI' DujwIj neH..."

ram'a' Duj? <murI' neH DujwIj> vIchup.

> "...yuQvam pawlI' yuQjIjQa' Duj.” jatlh Mahoun.
> “qatlh 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,” 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.

> “jISovbe'. 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'