[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh wa'maH chorgh: che'ron wIvlu'

[Qov]

At 12:41 '?????' 7/8/2012, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
>On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
>
> > yoH 'avwI' wa'DIch. jatlh, "nuqDaq ghaH vajar HoD'e'? HeSwI' ghonob."
>
>**
>ghaytan nIv <ghaH_taH_>.

chovnatlhmey vInejmeH GoogleDaq <nuqDaq ghaHtaH> vIghItlhDI'. 
chovnatlhmey law' vItu'. nuq bop bom bIH vaghmaH vathvI''e'. Hamlet, 
qoqmeylIj lutmey je vItu'. je''eghtaH Ha'DIbaHvam.

> > "naDev jIHtaH. HeSmeyqoqwIj tIper," jatlh vajar. vajar SIchmeH 
> ghom'a' juS 'e' nIDDI' 'avwI' wa'DIch, 'avwI' lu'uchchoH lopwI'pu' 
> 'ej nuHmeyDaj nge'. Haw' latlh.
>
>DaH tagh QuDna'. tugh QeHqu'choH qImyal.

joy'wI' pa' ghoSlI' qImyal, ja'pu' ne'. pa' qama'Daj loStaH'a'?

> > mej je mebpu' puS 'ach ratlhtaH HochHom. 'avwI'pu'chaj 'omqangmo' 
> *veS* yaSpu', vajar lumer 'ach Dujvam ghu' lucherghtaHmo' lumerpu' 
> je. nIn ngaSwI' rur quvchaj. qoD leghlaHbe' vay' 'ach SachtaH SIp 
> 'ej panDI' vay', pay' jor 'ej qul leghlaH Hoch.
>
>I was about to point out that {nIn} "fuel" doesn't necessarily need 
>to be flammable. Star Trek uses fusion and matter-antimatter fuels. 
>But as it turns out, the fuel called out on the Bird of Prey poster 
>is hydrogen, so never mind.

meQbe' Hoch nIn 'ach QaptaH qech.

> > tugh latlh qopwI'pu' lungeHlu' 'e' luSov, 'ej ghaytan law' chaH.
>
>Haw'ta' 'avwI' cha'DIch net botchugh, rap ghu'. bejtaHbej Hung beq.

Dujvam Hung mIwmey Dayajbej.

> > pa' HubrupchoHmeH nom vang tlhInganpu'. raSmey tlhe'ta' 'ej raS 
> HeHmeyDaq raSmey lan. Hung qonwI'mey HotlhwI'mey je Qotlh.
>
>maj. mangghomHomvam ra' 'Iv?

ra'wI' Delbe'pu' vajar. chaq chup vay' 'ej jIj latlhpu'. chaq ra'wI' 
ngu'be'pu' vajar Qu'mey ta'choHpa' mangghomHom.

> > jorwI'mey lutlh chenmoHmeH HIq balmey lo'. QumwI'mey lo' 'op 
> yaSpu'. Hol poD, per yuD je lo'.
>
>chu'be'law' QuS. vangrup nuv law'.
>
> > lojmItmey 'avchoH qoj botchoH. patmey naw'meH, lo'laH lojmItmey 
> poSmoHlI' chamwI'pu'.
>
>'Iq wotmey. <lo' law' lojmIt> DapongHa''a?

bIlugh. mu' {lo' law' lojmIt} vIqawHa'pu'.

> > jeS Hota'ro', ghutar je. chIch che'ronvam luwIvbe'pu' 'ach DaH 
> lucherta'mo' ghol qaDrup.
>
>qaDrup'a' che'ron'e'? pagh ghol luqaDrup'a' chaH?

va. naDev mu'tlhegh vIlaDqa'DI' vIlegh. qatlh vIleghbe' vIngeHpa'?

(And I just wrote mandopa' there. Any guesses where I'm planning a 
vacation this fall?)

> > 'avwI' lujonpu'bogh yu'choH ghom'a'. yaS patlhmey vuvmo' 'avwI' 
> mIS, jang 'e' nID, 'ach 'Iqmo jachtaHbogh kyu'wI'pu', moghchoH. 
> jatlh, "jISovbe' jay'! HIpIchQo'! vIra'lu'DI' jIlob neH. wo' vItoy'!"
>
>wo' toy' 'e' maq, 'a ra'wI' neH toy'. wo' toy'a' ra'wI''e'?

yIloS ... :-)

> > jatlh yaS QeH, "bIlob'a' neH? bIQIp'a'. bIQublaHbe''a'?" 'avwI' qab qIp.
>
>(I obviously have more trouble with questions that lack question 
>marks than you do. It's just not my style. But as long as it's 
>intentional on your part, I can accept it.)

I don't think they're totally required seeing a -'a' does the trick, 
and pIqaD is kinda low on punctuation, but I can't think of any 
reason it's not there. I probably just forgot to hit the question 
mark there. Fixed.

> > Ho'Du' 'ang 'avwI'. noD 'e' nID, 'ach lu'uchtaH ghom'a'. 
> HoHruplaw' yaS QeH. yu'wI'pu'Daj Saghqu' chov 'avwI'. lopno'chaj 
> luqaghpu'mo' 'avwI'pu', reH'a' yaSpu'? ghobe'. jatlh 'avwI', 
> "jIQIpbe'bej, qaH. ta'mey'e' poQbogh wo' vISovlaHbe'. ra'wI'wI' 
> vIvoqnIS. jaS QaplaHbe' may'Duj tIn."
>
>QI' Sun pablu'be'chugh, Dej QI' 'e' vIHarlaH.

bIghelDI' jang lut nuv 'e' vItIvqu'.

> > tlhuHqu' 'avwI' 'ej HughDajDaq nom Sach 'ej SachHa' 'aD 'e' leghlaH vajar,
>
>mu'tay' DaQachchu'. (Toki Pona vIghojchoH vIneH 'e' Datu'chugh, HIweq.)

jIyajbe'.

> > 'ach jottaH ghogh 'ej meq lu'agh mu'meyDaj. wo' lutoy'taH negh QaQ.

va. I misused lu- there. negh is grammatically singular. Just goes to 
show that there is a part of me that is trying to put lu- on verbs 
when a plural subject acts on a singular object.

> >  jatlh vajar, "wo' toy'be'chugh ra'wI'Daj, nuq 'oH tlhIngan mang Qu''e'?"
> >
> > "vIqaDnIS," jatlh 'avwI', "'ach wa'Hu' ra'wI'wI' numlu'. not 
> batlhHa' mu--" yev 'avwI'. jang 'avwI' 'e' luQoymeH jachbe'choHpu' ghom'a'.
>
><jatlhDI' tlhIngan 'avwI', 'Ijqu' nuvpu'.>

pIj qaSbe' 'ach meqmey Sov luneHlaw'.

> > luDechbogh tlhIngan qabDu' Sagh leghqa' 'avwI'. jatlh, "QI'yaH. 
> ra'wI'wI''e' bopbe', qar'a'?" nachDaj tlhe' mang, qIQlaw'wI'pu' 
> DevwI' nejtaHvIS. vajarvaD jatlh, "SaQaH. pa' quvDaq jIQam vIneH. 
> wo'na' vItoy'meH jISuvlaHqu'."
>
>vaj DevtaH vajar. yaS wa'DIch ghaHba' Hota'ro'. HungpIn poQchu'be' 
>QuD, vaj batlhpIn gheSlaH ghutar.
>
>Would {qIQwI'pu'Hey} be a better choice than {qIQlaw'wI'pu'}? It 
>does contrast more cleanly with {wo'na'}.

That's an interesting idea. I'll take it.

- Qov