[Tlhingan-hol] mIl'oD veDDIr SuvwI': 7 - Dujeychugh jagh nIv, yItuHQo'

[Qov]

At 09:47 '?????' 8/15/2012, Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh wrote:
>The final 'ay' of 'ay''a' wa'. Having a lot of fun with this!
>
>Warnings: Killing of animals, and some blood.

wej yap'a' HoHchaj?

>7. Dujeychugh jagh nIv, yItuHQo'
>
>Hatlh luvegh chaH lIghtaHvIS, chaH tlhopDaq 
>Ha'DIbaHmey tlha'taH chaH lIghtaHvIS.

I'm having trouble liking this as a sentence. The 
action of the sentence takes place in the area in 
front of them, but in that location they are 
chasing the animals. I think you're trying to use 
chaJ tlhopDaq to modify just the animals. <chaH 
tlhop Ha'DIbaHmey tlha'taH> would work better for me.

>HoHtaH chaH 'ej Qaw'taH chaH, Qunpu' vaqtaH 
>chaH, yotlh yav lunguvmoH 'ej Ha'DIbaH 'Iwmo' 
>luDoqqu'moH chaH. maq 'avtanDIl lubejtaHbogh 
>nuvpu', jatlh: «QI'tu' SuvwI'na' ghaHchu'!»

vI' tobmeH Hujbej mIwvetlh. toy'wI''a'pu' HoHbe' 'e' vItlho' neH.

>yotlhvetlh Hoch luvegh chaH 'ej Ha'DIbaHmey 
>tlha'lI'. yotlh Dop HopDaq bIQtIqHom lutu'; 
>bIQtIqHom HeH Sum luvel naghmey; HeH Hop So' 
>ngem[1]. tagha' ngemDaq luHaw' Ha'DIbaH; pa' 
>tlha'laHbe' 'avtanDIl Sargh roStevan Sargh je.

vaQqu'law' ngemvetlh.

>toDuj ta'chaj chavta'DI' 'avtanDIl roStevan je,

toDuj?  Qobchugh Ha'DIbaHmey HoHpu'bogh, vaj 
toy'wI'pu' toDuj law' law' lIghwI'pu' toDuj law' puS.

>Doy'choHpu', 'ach jeQtaH chaH! jatlhchuq Hoch 
>cha' «jIQapta' jIH'e'!» Quchqu'taH chaH 'ej 
>qIDchuq, 'utlh toy'wI'pu' loStaHvIS.

tagh wo'mey 'ej luj wo'mey 'ach not choHpu' loDpu'.

>tugh pawpu' paSbogh toy'wI'pu', 'ej cholDI', 
>jatlh 'utlh: «yIvIt; 'etlhmaj tIbochmoHQo'.»

ghIch vImaStaH.

>lujatlh toy'wI'pu' «mavItbej, 'o 'utlh; pItojQo' 
>maH. 'avtanDIl'e' Darur SoH 'e' 
>wImaqlaHbe'neS[2]. 'e' wIja'mo' chaq juHoH 'ach teHtaH 'ej nIboQbe' Heghmaj.

yoHbej.

>Ha'DIbaHmey qIpta'bogh ghaH DIleghpu' 'ej 
>DItoghta'; vIHqa'qu' pagh. nItebHa' cha'SanID 
>boHoHta' tlhIH cha', 'ach wa'SanID wa'maH HoHta' 
>'avtanDIl 'ej Hutvatlh HutmaH neH DaHoHta' SoH. 
>'ej chonnaQmeyDaj'e'[3], ray'Daj chIlpu' pagh tIH,

Doj.

>'ach yav neH luqIppu'bogh chonnaQmeylIj law''e' DIyIrnISpu'neS.»

DIyImISpu'neS? wot yImIS vISovbe'.

>'e' QoyDI' 'utlh, QeHbe'qu', SaHbe'law'; tlhoS Quj QapwI' neH maqlu'law'.

Quj QapwI' ghaHbej. chay' pIm?

>vItpu' toy'wI'pu'Daj 'e' ra' 'utlh 'ej 
>ruchta'mo' belchu'. loDvam'e' Qorghqu'ta'bogh 
>ghaH, yayDajmo' Quchqu'choH 'utlh. vuvqu' 'ej 
>muSHa'chu' 'utlh. montaHvIS lop, 'ej tIqDaj 'ItHa'choHmoHlu'.

jaq 'avtanDIl 'ej SuD 'ach Qapmo' Qapbej.

>Sormey bIng QIbDaq leSmeH pa' ba' chaH cha',

Why not <leSmeH chaH cha', Sormey bIng QIbDaq 
ba'choH> or <Sormey bIng QIbDaq leHmeH ba'choH 
chaH cha'> . I fully understand the desire to add 
some variety to sentence structure, but I'm 
starting to read about a resting chamber under 
some trees, then I have to back up and  .. okay I 
can see what's going on here. "They sat in order 
to rest in the shadow under the trees."   The way 
it's structured, the sitting is done to 
accomplish resting under the trees. I would be 
more comfortable were the sitting done under the 
trees, in order to rest, and were it not possible 
to misread it as <leSmeH pa'>  Also isn't it the 
shadow of the trees, rather than the shadow of 
the trees area underneath? Maybe QIbDaq leSmeH 
Sormey bIngDaq ba'choH chaH. I'm not sure about 
the legitimacy of chaH cha', but it doesn't confuse me.

>qIDtaHvIS 'ej QuchtaHvIS. chaH retlhDaq ghom 
>wa'maH cha' toy'wI', yoHwI' matlhwI' je; ghIq 
>toy'wI'pu' retlhDaq ghom negh law'qu' 'ej Dech, 
>ngem HeHDaq ngechHommey, bIQtIqHommey je bejtaHvIS.

Ha'DibaHmeyvetlh lommey boSnIS vay' ngImchoHpa'.

>--------
>[1] This descriptive bit's awkward and I may 
>rewrite it to make it flow better. The source 
>text is disjointed here, but I'm not as 
>concerned with remaining super-faithful to the 
>source as I am about spinning a coherent yarn.

I didn't find it disjointed. There's a stream at 
the end of the field with rocks on the near side 
and impenetrable-by-horses forest on the far 
side. Don't know where else you'd put that information.

>[2] Working out how much {-neS} is too much is a 
>really intriguing balancing act.

Leave some room for more if you get someone who 
is insanely fawning, but put enough in that one 
can instantly tell if someone is not being respectful.

>[3] A comment from Qov made me realise {beHmey} 
>were anachronistic and that this would be a good 
>opportunity to use the rich spear-related vocab from KGT.
>--------
>SKI: The count from the hunt is in. 'avtanDIl wins.

Doj vI'Daj.