[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh wa'maH Soch: romuluSngan SuvchoHmeH ngeD

[ghunchu'wI']

On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:

>> > "HIja'," jatlh Hota'ro'. "yIlegh. QujvetlhvaD boqchuq ngaH Sogh, ya Sogh je.
> 
> Ahh, okay problem here. One thing at a time:
> 
> 1. ngaH's rank: ...Later the fat yeoman addressed her by rank, and vajar thought the yeoman was talking to him, because ngaH's rank is "HoD."

DaH vIqaw.

> 2. ngaH Sogh and ya Sogh were both intended as possessives, "ngaH's lieutenant" and "the tactical officer's lieutenant."  

Oh. They do make perfect sense that way, in hindsight. I should have been able to figure it out when {ya Sogh} wasn't working right as a title. I definitely should have revisited my interpretation when {ngaH Sogh} gave me trouble with both the rank and the presence of the named person. Not having {ngaH HoD} handy in my brain was likely a contributing factor, but I probably would just have pointed it out as one of several continuity problems that, as it turns out, are just in my mind.

> As I wrote and proofread I didn't notice how they could be misinterpreted, but they obviously were misinterpreted by a competent speaker of Klingon, so I need to fix them.
> 
> Let's see:  jonpIn Sogh won't work if ya Sogh didn't, so {ngaH toy'bogh Sogh'e'}, {to' 'ay' Sogh} je? jonwI' 'ay' Sogh/ya 'ay' Sogh  vay' yIchup.

You probably wouldn't have mentioned their superiors if it weren't going to be important, so I can't seriously suggest {...boqchuq Soghpu'vetlh.}

Or maybe I can, if the next sentence is something like {ngaH/jonpIn toy' wa' 'ej ya toy' latlh.}

>> rep vIghochchugh, ghaytan Qa'bar DujHomDaq Qollu'.
> 
> tugh qechvetlh DachovlaH. bIQDaq 'eSSIm pumba'pu' 'ach Qa'bar DujDaj pawpu''a' Mossam?

Narratives that skip around in time give me difficulty. I'll stop trying to assign "offscreen" actions to situations based on my guesses about the parallel events. I'm obviously not very good at it.

>> > ratlh wa'
>> > latlh Qel, rachwI' puS je. vajar lumer SaHbogh nuvpu' mI'.
>> 
>> **
>> naDev lugh'a' <_lu_mer>? mer mI' 'ar?
> 
> jISovbe'. jaS vang Hol Sar. tlhIngan HolvaD chovnatlh wIghaj'a'

A question like this might be worth starting an explicit discussion in a separate thread.

>> > 'ach chay' vang.
>> 
>> qech vIyajbej, 'ej mu'tlhegh vIlaj, 'ach chenmeH pab nIt
>> vISamlaHbe'law'. jIQubqu'taHchugh, chaq jIponHa''egh 'ej mu'tlhegh
>> vIlajHa'.
> 
> SenglIj vIghovbe'.

ghelwI' Degh Hutlh mu'tlhegh. ghelqu'be' 'e' vIQub. ghelbejchugh, ngabchu' SengHeywIj.

>> > jatlhtaHvIS vajarDaq
>> > SIq 'ej bej.
>> 
>> **
>> 'ut'a' <-Daq>? yapbe''a' <vajar SIq 'ej bej>?
> 
> rut mumISmoH SIq chutmey. vIHotchugh 'oHDaq jISIq'a' 'ach vIcha'chugh neH 'oH vISIq'a'?

latlh ja'chuqmeH Soj 'oH.

>> Sevmey qelchoH 'Iv? toH, chaq Qa'bar DujDaq QaptaH DaqwI' cha'DIch.
>> chaq qeng Qugh Qel.
> 
> wej poH Dangu'chu'be'ta' 'e' vIHar.  taghDI' 'ay''a' wa'maH, gharben cha' mejpu' vajar. taghDI' 'ay''a'vam veSDaq pawlI' vajar. qaSqa'lI' poH nIb.
> 
>> > ghutarmo' Hagh 'op 'ach Sagh ghu' 'e' tlhoj 'op.
>> 
>> wa' Doch 'oH'a' 'opvam'e'? In English, "some are" if you're talking
>> about a count of things, but "some is" if you're talking about a part
>> of a thing. The difference would probably be mirrored by {'op Doch}
>> and {Doch 'op} in Klingon. Is {'op} alone singular or plural when it
>> means "some (of them)"? If it's plural, {'e' _lu_tlhoj 'op}.
> 
> Again, dunno. I'll put a lu- on that one for you.

Don't do it "for" me. I left it as an open question. 

-- ghunchu'wI'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120707/c6ee6c30/attachment-0001.html>