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

[Robyn Stewart]

At 02:02 07/01/2012, you wrote:


>Qov:
> > latlh raSDaq Sup ghutar, jatlh "wot'av, torgh puqloD! batlh 
> qelDI' tlhIngan, lumbe'. Do'Ha' DaHjaj betleHwIj'e' vInaw'laHbe'. 
> wa' munojqangchugh vay', DaH qaHay'."
>
>Does {Hay'} take an object?  I thought it was one of those verbs 
>where all the participants are in the subject (like {ghom}), but I 
>didn't find any canon evidence to back up my intuition.

Oh that's interesting. I read the English before the attributed text 
and when you said, "all the participants are in the subject" I was 
agreeing. I would write Hay' ghutar wot'av je. qaHay' seems okay to 
me, but so does maHay' and that may be safer.  I'll change it.

>Qov:
> > chuSqu'choH SopwI'pa'.
>
>Is it the {SopwI'pa'} itself that's beginning to be noisy, or 
>something inside it?  This is just a stylistic preference, but I'd 
>have written {chuSqu'choH SopwI'pa' qoD} or {SopwI'pa'Daq 
>chuSqu'choHlu'}.  {chuSqu'choH SopwI'pa'} sounds to me like the mess 
>hall itself is making noise.  (This may very well be an acceptable 
>way of saying that something inside the mess hall is making noise, 
>like it is in English, but I'm not sure.)
>
>Compare:
>{chuSqu'choH jonta' pa'; Qom tlhoy'mey}
>{jonta' pa'Daq chuSqu'choHlu'; yay lulop jonwI'pu'}

I understand the distinction, but for me it's not one that is worth 
complicating the sentence for. If it were a prefix change or made the 
sentence simpler, I'd see doing it.

>Maybe I'm taking things too literally.

Here I think so.

>Qov:
> > qevDaq chen gho chIm 'ej 'oHDaq QamtaH ghutar, wot'avHey[78].
> > [78] Any comments on this as "the guy who seemed to be wot'av"?
>
>DIp 'oHbe' {qev}'e'.  {ghom'a'} DaHechlaw'.

wa'logh teH. HolQeDDaq DIp mojpu'. muyevmoH je.

>wot'avHey vIyaj 'ej vIlaj.

maj.

>Qov:
> > jatlh Hota'ro', "nach DopDaq rIQ. So' jIbDaj."
>
>Qov:
> > "lu' qaH," jatlh 'avwI' 'ej vay' rI'. loSmeH 'avwI' retlhDaq 
> chobDaq [161] Qam vajar. tugh paw wochbogh 'avwI' tIn. SopwI'pa'vaD 
> jatlh vajar, "Ha'! Hota'ro', HItlhej!"
> > [161] Who requires a je here? I feel happy without it.
>
>Do we have any canon of two {-Daq}ed nouns side by side like 
>this?  The entire sentence is somewhat ambiguous and confusing to to 
>me.  Is the {chob} next to the {'avwI'}, or is {vajar} (who is 
>standing in a {chob}) next to the {'avwI'}?  Is the {'avwI'} also 
>inside the {chob}?  What's the subject of {loSmeH}?  I think it's 
>{vajar}, but initially I thought it was {'avwI'} until I got to the 
>end of the sentence.  If it is {vajar}, I'd write {loSmeH vajar, 'avwI'...}.

Ah. It's loSmeH, 'avwI' retlhDaq chobDaq Qam vajar.

I'll changed it to, {chobDaq loSmeH vajar, 'avwI' retlhDaq QamchoH} 
then changed it again to {chobDaq loS vajar. 'avwI' retlhDaq QamchoH}.

Evasion is one way to get around these things, and I use it in 
English, too. :-)

Many thanks for the feedback. I hope you're enjoying the story at 
least a fraction as much as I'm enjoying writing it.

- Qov