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

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:
 > SCOTT: maj.  qen bIQ Duj vIje'pu'. 
> UHURA: potlhqu'nIS qepvam[1].  'ampaSDaq ghojmeH qep vIche' 'e'  
> vIruchnIS. 

jIjangpu', jIjatlh:
> No issue with {-nIS} that I would raise, though my canon database is no help. 

mujang De'vID, jatlh:
> 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.   
> Here, it's really Uhuru who requires that {qepvam} be important.

Excellent point. The alternatives you suggest are probably better then. Or how
about {potlh qepvam 'e' vItul} "I hope this meeting is important"?

De'vID:
> McCOY: *Sulu* HoD'e'.  Qu' ta'taH. 

jIH:
> {chav} {rInmoH} ghap Daqelpu''a'? 

De'vID: 
> Actually, I thought about {ghIgh bajtaH} "he's earning his necklace
> (slang for assignment)".  Then I thought maybe it was too slangy.

Hm. McCoy really is the most informal and slangy of the crew in the film so
{ghIgh} might actually go well here; it'd help to capture McCoy's character.
I think it'd work, but if it still feels too slangy, no worries.

De'vID: 
> KIRK: nuqDaq ghaH *Spock*'e'? 

jang Quvar, jatlh:
> We do know that in "to be at a place" constructions, the pronoun  
> usually takes the suffix {-taH}. This was done correctly in the first  
> sentence, but missing in this question. Is this an eception here? 

Actually, yes, I think so. Specifically in questions with {nuqDaq}, it seems
to be usual to omit {-taH}. The examples I know from canon all lack it:

nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?
Where is the bathroom? (PK, CK, and Radio Times)

nuqDaq 'oH jengva''e'?
Where is the plate? (KGT)

nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?
Where are the plates? (KGT)

So though all these have {'oH} rather than {ghaH}, I still have no problem
with just {nuqDaq ghaH Spock'e'}.

De'vID:
> Thanks very much for your comments and suggestions! 

qay'be'! jIboQlaHchugh reH jIbel.

QeS 'utlh