[Tlhingan-hol] qo''e' tu'bogh pagh - 'ay' wej

[Qov]

At 10:01 15/01/2012, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
>QeS 'utlh:
> > I actually think {potlhqu'nIS qepvam} captures the sense well 
> here. No issue
> > with {-nIS} that I would raise, though my canon database is no help.
>
>But is it {qepvam} that needs to be important.  Someone pointed out 
>to me recently that {-nIS} expresses a need on the part of the subject.

I agree with that.

>  Here, it's really Uhuru who requires that {qepvam} be 
> important.  So I'm still not entirely sure about this.  Well, I can 
> always change this later if I think of something better.

Type-6 suffixes express the *speaker's* feelings about the 
item.  {potlhqu'bej} or {potlhqu' vIneH}?

>De'vID:
> > > CHEKOV: patlh jen ghajwI'vaD neH 'oHbe''a' qepvam'e'?
> > > KIRK: naDev maHchugh Hoch, nuqDaq ghaH *Sulu*'e'?

patlh jen ghajwI' => moch or nguppu'?

>De'vID:
> > > qaSpu'DI' vaghmaH tera' DISHeymey[3] loj yInSIpchaj.

In dialogue you get to use the useful time words. Why not {vaghmaH 
nem} or {vaghmaH tera' nem}?

>De'vID:
> > > 'Iqmo' Huch'e' poQbogh QI',
> >
>QeS 'utlh:
> > I'd say {QI'chaj}, just to be clear whose military's being talked about.

{Huch 'Iq natlh QI'chaj}?  I'd also be tempted by jo instead of Huch. 
The original is "expensive," or "costly" or the like, right?

>After considering the options, I think {qaD} is better 
>here.  They're not even ready to confront the problem, let alone defeat it.

:-)

I'm not following closely, just poking a  few ideas that have likely 
been discussed and discarded already for good reasons, sorry.
- Qov