[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh wa'maH Hut: Hurgh wa' Dop - chIS latlh

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Jul 9, 2012, at 8:12 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:

>> "Ha', reghovmeH Ha'qujrajDaq veDDIrvam 'ay' tItuQ."
>>
>> Two things:
>>
>> 1) I know plural suffixes are not required, but it took me three times
>> through this to understand that the grammar was correctly describing
>> multiple bits of fur. And it wasn't until the fourth time that I fully
>> recognized that it similarly implied multiple sashes. (The uncommon
>> verb prefix {re-} might have distracted me a little.)
>
> Interesting. I can't see tI-  and not know that it refers to multiples, and I would have a hard time thinking that a personal item like a Ha'quj with a -raj suffix referred to a shared item. It's like in English if you say "you guys go put wool representing sheep on your pants," I'm going to assume that each person has pants and that there's at least one sheep per pair of pants. I'm going to need a special explanation if you want me to understand that there is one, jointly-owned pair of pants, or that somehow one sheep is worn over multiple pairs of pants.

I've tried to come at it fresh as if I didn't already know exactly
what it said. That's not easy. My best guess at what caused me trouble
is simple cognitive overload. I got to the {tI-} at the next-to-last
syllable and it didn't match what I had already stacked up from the
rest of the sentence. After the {Ha'} it was only four words, but two
of them have polysyllabic nouns and one of them has an uncommon verb
prefix. The plural-ness indicated by the prefix immediately overrode
my default expectation of singular-ness, and I understood the meaning
without problem. It was just going back over it to convince myself
that it actually said what I understood that took me a couple more
tries to sort out all the implicit details.

>> 2) It's speech from a character, not a textbook, so I should't
>> complain too hard about its less than perfect clarity.
>
> Usually when you don't get something right away I think it should be changed, but I'm happy with this one.

I actually "got it" right away (ignoring the brief moment of
indecision just as I read the {tI-} prefix). I just took a while to
make sure that "it" was both what was intended *and* actually  what
was written. This is a high-grade-level sentence.

>> qar'a' lunobpu'_bogh_?
>
> HIja', 'ej DImISmoHpu'chugh Qaghvetlh'e', jItlhIj.

nuqjatlh? tlhIH'e' 'Iv?

>> > pa' HeHDaq vajar lutlhej Qochbogh yaSpu'. jatlh wa', "HoD, loD quv SoHmo' pIvuv, 'ach yImaw'Qo'. maQapmeH maHIghnIS.
>>
>> QochwI'pu' qunnIS vay'. batlhHa' vanglu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu' 'e' lubuSnIS.
>
> SoHvaD HIghDI' vay' reH batlhHa' vang'a'? vIHarbe' jIH.

QapmeH HIghnISchugh vay', chaq wembe'. noH ghoblu'DI' yay quv law' Hoch quv puS.

>> > may' law' SIQpu' vajar 'ej ngoDvam Sov: qaSpa' may' ghol Dajonchugh 'ej qama'vetlhvaD QIn Danobchugh, qama' DatlhabmoHDI' SIbI' QIn Hev Hoch. rut ghol ghIjmeH qama'vaD HIvwI' mI' ngeb ja' vajar. luHarbe' ra'wI'pu' 'ach Harmo' QaS, Qap to'. cha' qama' nov jonpu'DI', chaHvaD jeghmeH mIw Del vajar, ghIq wa' qama'vaD jeghbe'wI' San 'agh, bejtaHvIS latlh[271].
>>
>> (*wewghew* lut vIparHa'qu'bogh vIqawtaH: <lupwI' mIr weH>. cha'
>> qama'pu'vetlh cha' lut bertlham.)
>
> *wewghew* vIbejpu' 'ej lutvetlh vIqaw 'ach rurbogh ghu' vIqawchu'be'.

Hergh nIHHa'ta' Duj beq 'ej jaghpu' jonpu'. jaghla'vaD QIn jatlh HoD.
QIn lajQo' jaghla' 'ej HoD buQ. jaghla' pup HoD 'ej QuQ tlhop SuSDaq
yuv. jaghla' Sopchu' QuQ chuS.

ghIq jagh cha'DIchvaD QIn jatlhchoH HoD. taghta'DI' HoD, SIbI' QIn
Qoypu'bogh lajchu' jagh jIj.

-- ghunchu'wI'