[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh cha'maH Hut: <no' chavmey>

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> leS Hota'ro'. vay' jatlh 'ach Qoybe'.

I just figured out what it is that keeps nudging at me about the
specific writing style here. The subject or object noun is left out a
lot more often than if I were writing this. While there's absolutely
nothing wrong with that in general, there are times where a more
explicit indication of subject or object would help a lot. This
sentence is an example of one of those times -- a casual reader might
end up thinking that it was Hota'ro' who both {jatlh} and {Qoybe'}.

Pronouns in Klingon are often, maybe even usually, redundant. In
English, the difference between he/him and she/her would completely
disambiguate what's going on here. The usual idea that pronouns are
understood in Klingon even when missing doesn't tell the whole story.
Understanding them in this case doesn't help, because both of the
people taking part in this scene are {ghaH}.

I think adding one word, either {vajar} or {HoD}, to the end of the
sentence would clear things up completely.

> rut yajmeH qagh. Sa' mu'mey pup[95] Sov neH 'ach ja'laHbe' vajar.
> [95] This makes perfect sense to me. I'm not sure if it's due to my fevered
> imagination or because it makes sense. What, from this, do you think
> Hota'ro' wants to know?

She wants the General's exact words. I don't know whether it makes
sense because it's right, or because I came up with the same usage
independently.

> jatlh Hota'ro', “vaj Dujatlh Sa''e', ta'meylIj
> Dunmo' Duj choqqang Sa', 'ach nIja' jonwI'pu''e', Submo' Duj lutI'qangbej,

The quoted sentences don't seem to have the right subject.

> 'ej ponnIS pagh, qar'a'?”

There's that oddly vague {pon} again. I don't know who/what you intend
as its object.

> chIch nepbej'a' qImyal? pagh Qaghpu' neH?

'onglaw' qImyal. Qagh 'e' vIHarbe'.

> “Qo'!” jatlh Hota'ro'. “pagh DapIHbogh yI'ang. yI'Ij 'ej HarwI' yIDa.”

va. vItchu' HoDDaj neHbe' Hota'ro'. vajar jIHbe' 'ach reH jIH mubItmoH qeSvetlh.

> <yaS wa'DIchvaD Hota'ro' Sogh vISugh> ghItlh ghIq *Dugh* beq
> toDta' *veS* 'e' Del. [104] mub. cha'maH rep ret neH lutoDlu'.

morgh'a' Hota'ro', SovchoHDI'? DuHaghmoHlaw'pu' qech. chaq Hagh HoD
QIDqu'rupmo' ghutar.

mub nuq?

> jolpa' 'elqa', tuq lut Qatlh ja'lI' ghutar.

I wonder if "comma splice" is the kind of editorial vocabulary
Lawrence would want.

{ja'} is probably the wrong verb to use here. Are there any examples
of its use with anything other than a person as its object? I think
{jatlh} would work better, as its object (if any) is usually the thing
being spoken (the "speech event").

> Hagh ghutar. “Hoch ram Hut be'pu' yatlhmoHpu'chugh qeylIS, Hoch
> puqnI'pu'qoqDaj QIjbe'.”

(qaStaHvIS wa' ram be' 'ar yatlhmoHlaH Qotbogh loD?)

> Haghbe'laHbe' ghutar. jatlh lagh, “nep ghaH. ghotI' bIH tuqwIj
> cherwI'pu''e'. pongmeychaj vISovbe', 'ach quvqu' bIH. QallaHchu'.”[101]
>
> Hagh vajar. jatlh “QallaHchu' no'wI'--no'wIj!--je. chaq yurwI' SoH.” *veS*
> jonpa' lupaw, HaghtaHvIS Hoch.

Before vajar's suffix switch, I didn't even notice that ghutar had
said {bIH} instead of {chaH}.

> [101] If canon dictates non-aquatic evolutionary ancestors for Klingons
> please tell me and I'll be happy to change this part.

Trek canon on this subject (TNG "Genesis") is absurd, idiotic, and
ridiculous. I disregard it.

-- ghunchu'wI'