[Tlhingan-hol] chIjwI' tIQ bom: 'ay' Qav

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

jIghItlhpu', jIjatlh:
> Doqqu'choHpu'bogh pormey rur;
> ngem bIQtIq retlhDaq pum
> yav So'lu'pu'DI' peDqu'mo',
> be'Daj ghu SopDI' mughato',
> wuptaHvIS cha'par ghum.>
 
mujang ghunchu'wI', jatlh:
> nuq tlhutlhtaH Coleridge jay'?
 
Sov 'Iv? HoSghajlaw' HerghqoqDaj 'ej taQ...
 
jIH:
> [1] A lazy, lazy way of reaching for a rhyme here. I have my doubts as
> to if the Quch - QeH pair would be accepted in a law'/puS construction
> and I'm working on a decent recast.
 
ghunchu'wI':
> For what it's worth, I recognized it as a law'/puS immediately,

jIbel. ghovlu' 'e' vISovbe'.

taH:
> though the word pair is definitely unusual. If you don't like it, and
> if you need the {-meH} rhyme, perhaps {ghoQ/DeH} would work.
 
Hm. I do like that. My main problem with the Quch/QeH pair is that it's
not really clear if Quch has an opposite other than QuchHa'. But I want
to preserve the -meH so that it's clear the -meH clauses in the next
verse are to be taken as parallel to it.
 
jIH:
> I've flipped back and forth between Kahless and god/God/gods/Gods, and
> I'm checking now to see if it all makes more or less sense.

ghunchu'wI':
> Consistency is a fine goal. However, I wouldn't be too worried about
> how much sense it makes. :-P

There is that. :)

QeS 'utlh