[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH: <not majegh>

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> I always feel like I'm doing something tricky when I put aspects of the
> second sentence before the -'e'. It seems like the obvious thing to do, but
> how much canon do we have?

We have enough to cast doubt on the reliability of our instincts. I
don't think I've seen any that put anything between the object
sentence and the {'e'}. The one I can recall without research has
{luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH}, which is problematic anyway.

>> > jatlh Sa', "Dutoy' qu'wI'HomwI', Hota'ro' 'e' vItu'."
>> qu'wI'HomDaj qawqu'ba'.
> pagh SuchwI' tamey nuDta'.

ghaHvaD <qu'wI'HomwI'> pongmo', qawqu' 'e' vIHar. chaq leghpu'be',
pagh leghDI' ghovbe', 'ach qawqu'ba'.

>> > jatlh jonwI', "wej, ra'wI', DaH mIw wIwuqlI'."
>>
>> Addressing someone as {ra'wI'} doesn't feel right to me.
>
> It's in canon (KGT ranks section) as acceptable to  to address someone whose
> rank you are uncertain of, Sogh and up.

I didn't remember it saying that, so I looked it up. What KGT actually
says about {ra'wI'}:

"It may be used as either a description ({ra'wI' ghaH qImlaq'e'}
["K'mlak is a commander"]) or a title ({qImlaq ra'wI'} ["Commander
K'mlak"]), though in all cases it is understood as not reflecting the
precise rank of the individual."

It says {ra'wI'} is used a description or a title. It doesn't say it's
used in direct address. I'm definitely not claiming it's wrong, just
that it strikes me as not right.

> chaq jIghIQtaHvIS latlh 'ay'my vIngeH ...

jIghIQtaHvIS jIH vIlaDchugh jIjangbej.

-- ghunchu'wI'