[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH cha': <SuchwI' chaw'>

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> ngo' Duj 'ach veQ 'oHbe'bej.

Do' veQDuj 'oHbe' veS'e'.

> “nuqDaq DaghoS, HoD?”

'utbe' <-Daq> qar'a'? I'm getting a "from whence" vibe here.

> chobmeyDaq chaq vaghmaH nuv juS vajar DorwI' je.

The first time I read this it seemed fine. On my second pass, looking
for things to comment on, I found one. If I analyze the grammar
carefully, I think the sentence is saying that maybe they passed fifty
people, and maybe they didn't pass those fifty people. This is a weak
spot in my understanding of Klingon. Keeping in mind the observation
that "[Klingons] are never approximate," it could be a weak spot in
Klingon itself.

Would anyone like to debate the merits of putting {-Hey} on a number?

> QIj vajar, jatlh “DeghwI'wI' Darur.”
>
> jatlh be', “toH Hota'ro' ra'wI' SoH, vajar HoD, qar'a'?”

toH, Hota'ro' qawchu' je be'vam.

jIQubchoH. rurqu', qatlh 'e' Del qonwI'? pIj rambe' ramlaw'bogh De'.

> raS DungDaq tIHmey luHotlhlu'taHmo' chenlaw' Duj ngeb.

Neither "scan" nor "project" fits right with {tIHmey} as the object,
at least in my mind. I'd be okay with the beams *doing* the
scanning/projecting.

> vagh 'uj Saw', wa'maH vagh 'uj 'ab, 'ej jav 'uj juch HanDogh joj.

Dugh 'oSbe''a'? cha' HanDogh cha''a'?

> chaq SomrawDu' neH ghaq.

jIHvaD Qatlh mu'tlheghvam mach, mu' <ghaq> vIghovbe'mo'. mu'ghom vIlo'DI' vIqaw.

> qay'qu'law' peQchem lIngwI' ngaDmoHwI'.

qaStaHvIS poH nI' qay'taH.

> Qu'Daj lubuSbogh jonwI' 'Il'e' ghov.

Qu' lubuSchugh chaH'e', ghaytan Qu'_chaj_ 'oH.

> [53] tIqqu'choH 'ay'meywIj. bepchugh vay' HISovmoH.

jIbepbe' jIH.

-- ghunchu'wI'