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

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

Sorry I've been so bad with the last segments; for some reason messages are
coming to me in digest fashion again as a result of the apparent changes to
the list, and I haven't actually received any list postings but test messages
in two days. I'll get back on the horse with this 'ay' and will do my best to
keep up. :)

ghItlhpu' Qov, jatlh:
> Qom 'e' mev Duj.

This sounds a bit calquey. Did you have a reason for avoiding Qombe'choH or
QomHa'choH?

> pa' pIvghorvaD tlhamvaD je mI'mey Doq cha'lu'.

It took me a bit to work out what you were saying here; it's not wrong, but
the phrasing's a bit indirect. I would have put it a little differently, as
maybe pa' pIvghor tlham je patlh (, HoS, Dotlh ghap) cha' mI'mey Doq.

> Hem vajar 'a 'Iqbe'.[7]
> [7] Does this work okay for you? It seems that <tlhoy Hembe'> means 
> "too much not proud" and not "not too proud," so I had to go with 'Iq.

I think 'Iqbe' le'yo'Daj that you mention might be a better option. The way
you have it now my brain wants at first to treat vajar as the subject of 'Iq
too, which doesn't work all that well for me.

> Other options? Would <tlhoyHa' Hem> do it for anyone?

Intriguing. I don't think so, though. I would have interpreted tlhoyHa' as
being not "not too much", but more like "not enough", paralleling pIj "often"
and pIjHa' "seldom". pIjHa' is not just "not often", but in fact the opposite
of "often".

> 'ungya HIvchugh DeghwI' vImunbe' Qub HoD.
> [9] Not strictly a verb of speaking, but if I put it in quotes it 
> looks like he said it, and he only thought it. How else might I do it?

That's a really good question. I had the same issue in the Rime, but I just
did as you did, with the exception that I did use quotes. The only other way
I can think of would be to do it indirectly, with an 'e' Qub construction.

> vIj Heghbat wIpong.

jIHagh! ghu' Delchu'.

> "mumerbe'," jang DeghwI' "rurchuq SeHlaw je.

Do you not mean rurchuq je SeHlaw?

> ghopDu'wIj vImeQmoHbe'meH

I think vImeQbe'moHmeH might be better here, though I realise the distinction
between vImeQbe'moHmeH and vImeQmoHbe'meH is fairly small.

QeS 'utlh