[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH wej: <wIvmey>

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Qov <robyn at wabyn.net> wrote:
> motlh *Dugh* luqeltaHvIS jonwI' 'Ij 'e' tIv HoD 'ach DaH *Dugh* Heghbat
> lunab.

lugh'a' <motlh> Daq? wot tlhejbogh vIqIm. "He usually enjoys
listening" DaHech qar'a'? "He enjoys usually listening" vIlaD.

> qaStaHvIS may' law' vajar QantaH *Dugh*.

vaj *Dugh* Qanrup vajar.

> buSchuqmo' latlh jonwI'pu' qaH'engvaD ja',...

'utbe' <-vaD>.  DuQoymeH nuv bIjatlhchugh, nuvvam Daja'.

> choH qaH'eng qab. lajlaw'.

Every once in a while, I notice something like this. It reads
perfectly well in Klingon, with no hint of anything unusual. As soon
as I start to translate it I remember that there's a rich set of
descriptions for facial expressions that an author would likely have
used had it been composed in English.

> jatlh jonpIn. "...*Dugh* naQ ma'laHbe'mo' lupDuj choQmaj,
> loQ Duj wIlaghnIS. latlh HanDogh wIchevnISba' 'a ghaytan meH wIchevnIS je."

tlham tIH tlhuDwI' Hutlhlaw' *veS*.

> "Duj bowoDmeH bolagh jatlhlaw' Sa'," jatlh vajar.[118]
> [118] Or uh, what prefix would you put here for "qImyal said you ..."?

Yeah, I got a sense of disorientation when I read it. I'd pretend the
problem doesn't exist, and say it this way:

  Duj bowoDmeH bolagh 'e' vIQub. muja'law' Sa'.

The first sentence doesn't have to be a quotation. It's just a statement.

> Sa' lumISmoHlaw'pu' jonwI'pu' tlhach mu'mey.

pIj jonwI' yajbe'law' vu'wI' 'e' vI'ollaH.

> DaH Duj polmeH 'utbe' woQDaj.

maj. woQ welnIS 'e' parba' vajar.

> "HoD 'oH je patlhwIj'e'," jatlh jonpIn.

I'm uncomfortable with this particular "to be" construction. This is
probably just a personal quirk of mine, but it seems wrong to say it
that way. Her rank isn't a captain, or "the" captain, but that's how
my brain really wants to interpret it. It's not like saying {nuH 'oH
je ghopDaj'e'}.

For some reason, it sounds right to me in the other direction:
{patlhwIj 'oH je HoD'e'}. I think it's the type 4 noun suffix on
{patlh} that keeps the "is a/is the" interpretation of {'oH} at bay.
I'm not quite sure why I don't have the same problem with {HoD}
referring to the name of the rank instead of a person having that rank
when it's used as the subject.

I'd like to hear what others have to say about it.

> "bota'ta'DI' DujvetlhDaq bIrmoHmeH taS vItu'chugh, boSop."

buQ'a'? qID'a'? ram. qu'bej, 'ej...

> "lu', HoD!" jatlh ne'pu' ghIq mej.

...luvuvba'.

-- ghunchu'wI'