[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' loSmaH cha'

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> roSHa'be'law'[21].

jIHvaD qay'be'chu' mu'vam.

> ...'a yebmeyvam[29] lupe'lu'law'.

I wouldn't have been so brave as to choose which plural suffix to use.
I would have avoided the issue by leaving it off entirely.

> "HoD!" jatlh Hung yaS.

Dun. Qaplaw' QoghIj.

> pay' Seng tlhoj HoD. "bIbIrqu'mo', bItujchoHtaHvIS 'oy'qu'. SoHvaD qul rur
> tuj motlh." jatlh vajar.

'Iv bIrmo' ghu'vam DaSIQpu' SoH 'e' vIpIH.

> bIrqu'mo' meQlaw'pu'...

I never considered freezer burn as analogous to frostbite before.

> "chay' logh SutlIj qoDDaq chuchvetlh SuD Daghaj?"

jIloyqang. valqu''a' ghutar? yeb chachmo' chIch chuch lo''a'? tugh vIjanglu'ba'.

> [23] You may have noticed that I've been adhering pretty stringently to the
> rule of no aspect suffixes after 'e',  even though I think it's a silly
> rule, so this one suddenly struck me.

{X 'e' Y-taHvIS} is the phrasing that HoD Qanqor uses as an example
when arguing that the rule is stupid and doesn't need to be followed.

> Imagine if you were supposed to say
> <'e' tujmoHvIS>. The thought amuses me.

Daj.

> [28] vaj ghunchu'wI', muD Duj chach Daqaw DaneHchugh, BA5390 DaqelnIS.

Ouch.

-- ghunchu'wI'