[Tlhingan-hol] voDleH Sut chu' (or, paghmo' tIn mIS)

[Qov]

No one seems to have replied to this yesterday. Forgive me if I 
missed it and am recovering same ground.

At 08:39 06/02/2012, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>--------------------
>
>voDleH Sut chu'
>qonwI' ghaH Hans Christian Andersen'e'
>mughta' loghaD
>
>DIS law' ret

ben law'

>puHDujDaj lIghchugh SutDaj chu' much neH neH.

Or maybe SutDaj chu' muchmeH neH puHDujDaj lIgh.

>reH vengDajDaq QaQ yIn. Hoch jaj veng lu'el novpu'. wa' jaj 
>'elwI'pu'Daq leng cha' tojwI'pu'.

I would have chosen {'elwI'pu' tlhej cha' tojwI'pu'}. Otherwise 
sounds to me like they were travelling around in the people entering.

>DIrmeychaj Dun law' Hoch Dun puS 'e' lumaq. motlhHa' nguvmo' pov 
>DIrmeychaj 'ach latlhmo' povqu'. Sutmey renbogh leghlaHbe' qoH 'ej 
>patlhDaj qotlhbe'chugh vay' Sutvam leghlaHbe' ghaH.

maj.

>chaH bejDI' voDleH Duy Sotqu' paghHey leghlaHmo'. paghna'vaD vIt 'e' chIl.

'e' chIl?  Do you mean luj or Haj, maybe?

>SutDaq SumchoH ghaH 'e' lutlhob tojwI'pu'. jatlh chaH, naDev yIghoS! 
>Sut 'IH wIrenlI'bogh yInuD!

Maybe at this point the salient thing is wIchenmoHlI'bogh

>SutvaD lubuSmoH[1] Seylaw'bogh renwI'pu'qoq

Do they really lubuSmoH? Maybe tungHa'moH.

Why not: renwI'pu'qoq Seymo' pe'vIl Sutmey buS voDleH qeSwI'.

>Qub ghaH, qoH jIH'a'? Qu'wIjvaD jIpo'be''a'?

Consider 'um or tlhIb as well as po' here (and originally).

>tugh latlh Duy ngeH voDleH 'ej tlhoS nIb wanI'[4]. nuD 'ej bej 'ach 
>leghbe'. pagh leghchu'

I know you're going for "s/he saw nothing at all" but it comes out to 
me more like, "he saw nothing perfectly. Consider {Sut leghbe'chu'}.

>Qub Duyvam, jIQIpbe' 'e' vISovbej. vaj Qu'na'wIjvaD yapbej laHwIj. 
>Huj ghu'vam 'ach vIt tu'meH pagh 'ut.

A comma after pagh would make that easier to read.

>noychoH Sutqoq 'IH 'ej chenchu'pa' legh ghaH je neH voDleH.

Something odd going on here after legh. I think you mean {legh je 
ghaH neH voDleH}.

>SIrghjanDaq[5]

I probably wouldn't have noticed without the footnote. You clearly 
established what you were talking about beforehand, rather than just 
presenting a compound word that people were expected to understand.

>bej Hoch ghot'e' qemta'bogh voDleH.

But why -Daq bej.  Do you mean {SIrghjan qoD bej} or {SIrghjan bej}?

>'IHqu'! yItuQ! yItuQ! Du'IHmoHbejneS Sutvam! tugh nganpu'vaD QI' 
>much'a' DaDev. ngugh yItuQ. Du'IHmoHbej!

Now that's just mean. They should have pointed out "pagh 
DatuQlaw'taHvIS nIlegh qoHpu' DaneH'a'?" Could have saved everyone a 
lot of embarrassment.

>QI' much'a' wa'Hu' ram naQ not Qong tojwI'pu'.

I'm not accepting this as "one day before the military parade."

>meQchu' jav weQ vaj vumqu' chaH net Har.
>SIrghjanvo' Sut lujotlh[7] 'e' lughet.

Ahh, I've finally realized that it's a loom not a sewing machine. You 
might need the idea that {SIrgh qengwI' lunechtaHmoH 'ach chImlaw'}. 
If it matters.

>Sutqoq lupe'meH cha''etlh pe'wI'meyna' tIn lo'. ghangwI'Daq narghDI' 
>jul tugh vem voDleH 'ej SIbI' renwI'pu'qoq jaH. lutlhej[8] veng chuQun nIv.

Kinda late to be taking the cloth off the loom. They're going to cut 
and finish the garments in one morning?

I would make it {tlhej}. Inherently plural nouns are grammatically singular.

>ghopDu'chaj pep tojwI'pu' 'ej vay' 'uchlaw'.
>ghel yuDbogh wa', jatlh, yopwaHvam DaparHa''a'?
>ghel tojbogh latlh, jatlh, wepvam DaparHa''a'?
>ghel tojwI' wa'DIch, jatlh, ngupvam DaparHa''a'?
>jang yuDbogh ta', jatlh, Hoch vIparHa'qu'.

yuDbej'a'? neplI' 'ach yuD ... to me is a deeper character thing, not 
just one occasion.

>jatlh tojwI' cha'DIch, qaH yItuQHa'choHneS. ghIq SIla'Daq SutlIj 
>chu' DatuQchoHmeH pIQaHlaH.

You don't like {tuQmoH}?

>pagh leghlaH pa' chuQun

You mean "the room's nobility?" I think you can leave out pa'. We 
know the ones not in the room won't see anything.

>tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq chuQun naD Qoy voDleH.

I'm confused by the change from tIngvo' to 'evDaq and chanDaq. Is 
there some significance? If it's "from the SW, to the NW to the E" I 
don't get why the movement. If it's from the SW, and in the NW and in 
the E" then you need a je after that.

>ghIq 'el muchmey buSbogh qeSwI'Daj'e'. jatlh, qaH! HurDaq ghaHtaHneS 
>chup qengwI''pu''e'.

chup qengwI'pu', hmm, I wonder who those will be, and how they differ 
from qeSwI'pu'

>voDleH quvmoHmeH van toy'wI'pu'. ngupDaj lujenmoHmeH luwoH 'e' 
>lunID. luj 'ach Qap 'e' lughet.

Ah of course, that kind of ngup.

>DoqchoH voDleH mInDu'. qaSpu' Qugh Hajbogh 'e' SIv ghaH. 'ach taH 
>muchvam net poQ 'e' Qub vaj yIttaH 'ej lutlha'taH toy'wI'pu'Daj chuQun je.
>reH voDleH Sut Dun luqaw veng nganpu' 'ach not Sutvam tuQqa'.

maj.

>[1] ...or should it be ghaHvaD Sutvam lubuSmoH, as with qawmoH and ghojmoH?

That's certainly more understandable.

>[2] There are certainly other ways of expressing this; I just happen 
>to like the sound of this.

I'm not fond of it, but I can't say why.

>[3] I feel Hevta' conveys the idea that they have successfully 
>requisitioned something, and not just received it by change. Qoch'a' vay'?

Works for me.

>[4] Part of me wants to leave out the tlhoS, but we've been taught 
>that Klingon admire accuracy, so it seems apt.

I don't have a problem with it.

>[5] Oh yeah, I just compounded the veQ out of these two DIpmey! 
>Whatcha gonna do about it, punk?

As I said, my only objection to the word was the -Daq with bej.

>[6] Based on la'quv. Not quite kosher, I know, but I feel the 
>extravagant title feeds into the ridiculousness of this situation.

I can take it. You could consider tevmey nob.

>[7] I'm treating Sut as a whole set of clothes, as that's how I 
>interpret the gloss, "clothing" (and possibly even a whole pile of 
>clothing). As such, a single article of clothing would be Sut 'ay' 
>(or SutHom?). Qoch'a' vay'?

I think any article of clothing is Sut and I use Sutmey or Sut for 
the whole lot. I always have to guard against thinking of it as "suit".

>[8] What sort of word is chuQun? Can it refer to a single noble? Is 
>it correct to treat it as plural? Perhaps I should use joHpu' or 
>chuQun joHpu' something.

I don't know that we're even sure that it doesn't refer to the 
concept of nobility, but I'd treat it like no'.

I liked that. And you see it distracted me from posting the next 
chapter of my story for a day, so it's a win for everyone. :-)

- Qov