[Tlhingan-hol] mIl'oD veDDIr SuvwI': 'ay' 4 - reH DuSIgh vavlI'

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

jIjatlhpu':
> Warnings: None, although those of Ferengi extraction may
> find this 'ay' deeply disturbing.

mujang Qov, jatlh: 
> jISIvqu'!. qogh ghong'a' vay'?  Sutmey law' tuQmoH'a' be'?

SuqwI' chut'a' wa'DIch wem. :) « Huchchaj Datlhapta'DI', not yInobHa'. »

jIH:
> tIna'tIn'e', QorghwI'Daj quvqu' voqchu'bogh rIt[1],

Qov:
> I know what you're doing here, but have we seen 
> it used to invert a sentence? I only remember it 
> used to bring an object through the adverb.

Since -'e' is a type 5 suffix, an -'e'-marked noun can also be used as
a bog-standard header:

qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS
You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy. (ST5)

Personally I think that's what's happening in {cheng'e' DaH yISam} as
well: {cheng'e'} is no longer a syntactic object, it's a header, which
is why it can come before the adverb. A more literal translation would
be "As for Chang, find him now!". Since roStevan was the topic of the
previous sentences, this was really the only easy way I could make the
possessor of {QorghwI'Daj} be clearly identifiable as tIna'tIn.

jIH:
> 'ej ghaHvaD jatlh: «mIpwIj Hoch DaQanpu'bogh 'ej DangaQmoHtaHbogh
> HIqeng; joH puqbe' jIHtaHvIS mIp Hoch vIvI'pu'bogh HIqeng.» ghaHvaD
> qengchu' QorghwI'Daj. ghIq nuvpu' mIpvaD nuvpu' mIpHa'vaD je Hoch mIp
> vI'pu'bogh nobchoH tIna'tIn, 'ej nuvpu'vetlh mIpmoH. SaHbe'law'taHvIS
> nobtaH, toghbe'bejtaHvIS nobtaH, Doy'be'choHtaHvIS nobtaH. ghIq jatlh: 
> «Qu''e' mughojmoHta'bogh vavwI' vIchav 'e' vIHech, 'ej pagh pollu'
> vIneHbej.»

Qov: 
> loQ jIH muSuj. chay' wo' loH, jo HutlhtaHvIS? 
> chay' qeSwI'pu' DIltaH 'ej toy'wI''a'pu' je'taH?
> [DaH DIvI' Hol vIlaDta': mIp'e' vI'ta'bogh ghaH nob. wo' mIp nobbe'law'.

HIja'. 'e' vIchuH 'e' vInID: {mIpwIj Hoch}, {mIp Hoch vIvI'pu'bogh},
{Hoch mIp vI'pu'bogh... tIna'tIn}. 

jIH:
> Quch'eghmoHmeH

Qov:
> [Is "make merry" that literal?  I think it means 
> more tIv or lop or chechchoH.

QaQ {lop}. {loptaHmeH} vIlo'. I was trying to avoid tIv'egh, which Marc
has used but I do my best to stay away from.

jIH:
> ghomchuqpu' negh law', 'ej QuchtaH. 'ach yav bej 
> tIna'tIn joH vav; 'IQqu'law' qabDaj. tagha' 
> jatlhchuq negh: «qatlh 'IQqu'? nuq 'oH 'ItmeH meqDaj'e'?»

Qov:
> I would have chosen 'ItmoHbogh, trying to avoid 
> the "is it really for the purpose of?" concern. Or just 'ItmoHlaw' nuq.

nIv {'ItmoHlaw' nuq}. vIlo'.

jIH:
> raS megh'anDaq ba'taH 'avtanDIl'e', mangghom ra'wI';

Qov:
> mangghom ra'wI' ghaH 'e' vItu'be'. ra'wI' ghaH 
> 'e' vISov 'ach mangghom naQ ra'. maj. tu'jaj tIna'tIn.

Hm. I was going for "commander of an army" or "army commander" rather
than "commander of THE army", as 'avtanDIl is the son of the ra'wI''a'na'.
But I guess the distinction is trivial here.

jIH:
> jul rur qabDaj, qettaHvIS Hun rur, SuvtaHvIS mughato' rur.[3]

Qov:
> bIng Dach mI'vam. HIDaqu'Qo'!.

:) I was going to say to remember that this was a poem and so is a lot
more florid than one might expect from normal prose, but then I thought,
hell, if I remind people of that every time I'll never get anything else
said.

> Hun vIqawbe'. vIlIjpu''a' pagh 'atI'la QaS Daqel'a'?

'atI'la QaS vIqelbe' ('ach DaQubmo' jIQuch! vIparHa'). DalIjlaw'pu';
paq'batlhDaq tu'lu' {Hun}. qep'a'Daq wIlaDDI' {'IHrun} 'oHpu', 'ach
paqna' chenmoHlu'pa', choHlaw'ta' Marc.

jIH:
> ghaH retlhDaq ba'taH je qeSwI''a' qan, Soghrat. 
> jatlhchuq chaH, 'avtanDIl Soghrat je: «roStevan 
> 'utlh DachmoH nuq, 'ej qatlh chISchoH qabDaj?»

Qov:
> DaH SawnIS puqbe'Daj 'e' qelchoHchugh vIHoH.

choHaghqu'moH!

(qaqawnISmoH je: since tIna'tIn is female she can only nay.)

jIH:
> tagha' wuq chaH, jatlhchuq: «'utlh yab 
> yotlaw'pu' qech mIgh; naDev qaSbe'ba'pu'qu'

Qov:
> Is that really where you want the -qu'?

ghobe'. tlho'. {naDev qaSbe'qu'ba'pu'} vImojmoH.

jIH:
>SujlaHbogh vay'.» ghIq jatlh 'avtanDIl: «wItlhobjaj, 'o Soghrat,

Qov:
> Does Georgian have a vocative case?

choghelmo' jIbel. :) I was wondering if anyone would ask that. Yes,
it does.

jIH:
> ghaH tuHmoHta'bogh ta'maj'e'

Qov:
> Good use of the possessive, to avoid ta' 
> confusion. 'a qatlh ta' tuHmoH ta'chaj'e' 'e' luHar?

{naDev qaSbe'qu'ba'pu'} jatlhpu' chaH. They haven't seen anything
happen around them, so they assume that it must have been something
one of them has done. Like that old joke, "There's a loser in every
group of friends and if you can't tell who it is... it's you."

> [Does the English not mean {qatlh 
> nutuHmoHta'?}?  Not that that makes any more sense.]

The Georgian verb is /gagvats'bila/ "we have embarrassed him". It
seems that English "shame" had a now-obsolete sense of "be ashamed",
so "why has he shamed us?" is really more "why is he ashamed of us?".

jIH:
> HIvje'meychaj tebmoH

Qov:
> yoH'eghmoHmeH?

ghaytan!

jIH:
> mon Hoch cha', jatlhchu'taHvIS qeSwI''a'.

Qov:
> 'a nuq jatlh?  qojmey Dajunbe' SoH.

ghojmoHwI' po'vo' jIghoj jIH. :P

QeS