[Tlhingan-hol] Hoghvam qaSpu' (2011-09-17)

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

ghItlhpu' bI'reng, jatlh:
> waw'­'e' ghajbogh {neyto}

jIjangpu', jIjatlh:
> Is this a base that NATO held for some reason, or was it a proper NATO
> base? If the latter, maybe just {neyto waw'} is enough. To me {waw''e'
> ghajbogh neyto} sounds like maybe a base that NATO have temporarily or
> something - it's highly marked. It's not wrong to phrase it like that,
> but it strikes me as odd.

mujang bI'reng, jatlh:
> That's a good point. It was actually NATO's headquarters in
> Afghanistan, but I couldn't figure out how to translate "headquarters"
> (waw''a'?).

To me "headquarters" is an excellent gloss for waw''a'.

> I think I wanted the word NATO to appear at the end of the phrase so
> it could introduce the short explanation {tera'Daq QI' boq}.

I suspected as much. :) If you want to preserve that, cher "establish"
might be good to use: waw''a''e' cherta'bogh neyto "the headquarters
that NATO have established".

bI'reng:
> -- tera'Daq QI' boq --

jIH:
> naDev Hat {-Daq}.

bI'reng:
> neyto chenmoHtaH Sepmey puS; Hoch Sepmey ngaSbe' neyto vIja'chu'
> vIneH.

'e' vIbej. But even if tera'Daq QI' boq were legal I don't agree it'd
be different from tera' QI' boq in the way you intend. For sure, it
could certainly mean "a military alliance on Earth", but it could just
as easily mean "THE military alliance on Earth" - i.e. the one and only,
Earth-wide military alliance. In the same way, tera' QI' boq could mean
"the Earth military alliance" or it could also mean "AN Earth military
alliance", one of several.

> latlh QI' boqmey tu'lu' je. chaq qaq mu'tlheghvam: {tera'Daq
> QI' boq tu'lu'bogh}?

Qap.

QeS 'utlh