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

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> "puchpa' tlhoy' 'emDaq yaghmey vIleghDI' ... jI'empu'. [15]

Oh, I expected the footnote to justify your use of {-pu'} here. I
wanted to see if my understanding matches your intent.

> "yIbuSHa', Hung yaS. ghaytan puchvo' 'oH."

Something about {puchvo' 'oH} doesn't sit quite right with me. What
you mean is absolutely clear, but I can't think of a grammatical rule
that actually lets it say that. {puchvo' nIj} is what I'd say here, or
maybe {puchvo' nargh}.

> wa' jaj QaQ Hung yaS moj.

mujlaw' <QaQ> Daq.

> "nuqjatlh?" jang yaS wa'DIch "jI'or 'e' vIbuS. qaSqa'laH 'e' DaHar'a'?"

qaSqa'laH nuq?

> "qaSqa'laH nuq?" jatlh HoD.

toH. jImobbe'.

> "vIj Heghbatqoq. tlhe'Ha'choH latlh 'e' vIHar. wej vISovbej. qaSchugh DaH
> machqu' tajvaj.[18]

Now that the phenomenon has been established and explained and you
don't need to describe it in minute detail again, I don't find
anything objectionable about invoking it. You can assume the necessary
background and just say {tlhe'Ha'} and {tajvaj} with the expectation
that the reader knows what it implies.

> "QaybeH Degh. DaSeHrupDI' yItlhap" jatlh yaS wa'DIch.

tlhIngan CRM? Daj.

> tay'choH beq tay'Ha'choHtaHvIS Duj.

maaaaaaj.

-- ghunchu'wI'