[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH jav: <jabbI'ID>

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> “ngoq Dalo'nISchugh net chaw'."

I had to read this several times before I understood that the object
of {net} was an unstated {Dalo'}. I think it would be fine without the
{-nISchugh}.

> "labbeHDI' qawHaqDaq yIpol..."

labbeHlaH'a' jabbI'ID? I have no problem with {-beH}, but I don't
think {lab} works this way. Maybe {naQDI'} instead, but it's not quite
right. I see in the footnotes that you had the same reservations.

> "vay' pav DalabnIS 'e' pIH ra'wI'ma'."

pIHba' ra'wI'.

> batlh Heghpu' 'e' 'olpu' Qel je.

It's weird that I trip over this so strongly when I read it. It's not
*that* big a deal to break the "no aspect suffix on the second verb in
a SAO" rule, is it? I'd finesse it as {HeghDaj batlh 'olpu' je Qel}.

> vanmeH jatlh “wo' wItoy'.” mu'tlheghvetlh maSlaw'
> qImyal vaj jabbI'ID jIHDI' chaq belmoH.

chIch vanwI'vam wIv vajar chaq 'e' tlhoj qImyal. bochmoHwI' par'a'?

> pa' cha'vatlh tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'...

It was only on my second pass through this that the lack of
approximation was apparent. Picking a handy number works fine.

> pa'Daq cha'maH cha' raS tIq tu'lu'...

lutu'lu'

I'm going to feel very silly if we ever find that {lu-} is *supposed*
to be left off in sentences like this.

> ...'oHDaq ratlhmo' ghISDenHey ghaytan lung Segh 'oH.

Daj. ghISDen vIleghchugh jIH, ghotI''e' vImumrup.

> “Dujvetlh chu' DaparHa''a'?” jatlh vay'. jang Hota'ro' 'ach QoylaHbe' vajar.

va. vajar DeS tI'ta' Duj Qel. DaH vajar teS'e' tI'nISbej vay.

-- ghunchu'wI'