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

[Qov]

Hey, I missed you. You're part of the creative process now. :-)

At 13:50 04/01/2012, you wrote:
>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'.

lInDab Duj 'oH. 'ach Qu'DajvaD thoy ngo'.

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

jIQoch. I'm pretty sure nuqDaq is a chunk like QongDaq, not the same 
word as, say nuqDaq DaQeq = what are you aiming at.  If there were 
numerous objects in the room and you had to pick one to approach then 
sure, nuq DaghoS, but "Where are you going?" = nuqDaq DaghoS.

> > 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?

I agree with the problem. It's one I often run into. Perhaps it's 
culturally okay to pick an arbitrary number and just claim it, 
despite it not being quite accurate. Kids do that in English before 
they've learned to insert weasel words like "like/about/around."  Or 
perhaps {vaghmaH nuv juSlaw'}.  I think I've tried things like -Hey 
on a number in the past, but I'm trying to avoid such edgy heresies 
here.  I got shot down for treating numbers like nouns when I did it 
without thinking ({wej loS je}), but I lack native speaker instincts. :-)

For here I will change it to an exact number. {chobmeyDaq vaghmaH loS 
nuv juS vajar}. If someone asks {toghta''a'?} I'll cross that bridge then.

> > 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.

Qat'a'?

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

qonwI' yIqel. loQ murur vajar.

> > 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.

"Above the table because of projected beams a false ship appeared to 
take form."

You would find:

{raS DungDaq HotlhtaHmo' tIHmey chenlaw' Duj ngeb}?

I'd welcome a better description. It's quite clear in my head what it 
looks like.

> > vagh 'uj Saw', wa'maH vagh 'uj 'ab, 'ej jav 'uj juch HanDogh joj.
>
>Dugh 'oSbe''a'? cha' HanDogh cha''a'?

HIja', ghaytan pu'jIn lu'lo'. 'ej vabDot lojchugh HanDogh chevbogh 
chuq noHlaH vay'.

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

mu'mey qub vIlo' 'e' vItIv. SoHvaD qubmo' jIbel.

> > qay'qu'law' peQchem lIngwI' ngaDmoHwI'.
>
>qaStaHvIS poH nI' qay'taH.

'ay' wa'vaD Dochvam QIp vI'oghta'mo' reH vISIQnIS.

> > Qu'Daj lubuSbogh jonwI' 'Il'e' ghov.
>
>Qu' lubuSchugh chaH'e', ghaytan Qu'_chaj_ 'oH.

bIlugh.

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

  'ay'mey vIchevta'DI' 'ay''a'vam vIchoHqu'mo' pIj 
qaS.  bIcheghta'mo' jISeychoH. SoHvaD lut vIqon 'e' vItIv.

- Qov