[Tlhingan-hol] chIjwI' tIQ bom: {baQ} {DeH} je

[De'vID]

QeS 'utlh:
> jIghItlhpu', jIjatlh:
> > chIrgh leng wIlengtaHvIS maH tay'
> > mutlhejqangchugh nuv QaQ,
> > Dunqu'; jIHvaD lengvetlh 'ey DeH
> > SawwI' 'uQ'a' 'ey baQ!

> mujang De'vID, jatlh:
> > It may just be me, but I read {wIlengtaHvIS maH mutlhej nuv} as "a
> > person accompanies *us* while *we* travel", i.e., the {maH} excludes
> > the (additional) companion.  Even with {maH tay'}, I'm inclined to
> > interpret this as the speaker already being a part of a group, which is
> > then accompanied by an additional person.  Otherwise, the additional
> > companion would be {tlhej}ing him/herself, which doesn't quite work in
> > my mind.

QeS 'utlh:
> I'm a little surprised to hear that. {mu-} isn't one of the prefixes that
> is defective for number: {mutlhej} can only mean "he/she/it/they accompany
> *me*". "X accompanies *us*" would be {nutlhej}.

Of course, you're right.  The proximity of {maH} has misled me.  Regardless
of my error, my point was that I read the {maH} as *excluding the
companion*, which I thought might not have been what you intended (but
which, with your clarification in the next verse below, apparently was
really what you intended after all).

Correcting for my error, what I had wanted to express was that I read it as
"a person accompanies me while we (I and others, excluding this additional
person) travel", and not "a person accompanies me while we (I and the
companion) travel".  I thought you might have intended the latter, but it
seems you did indeed intend to express the former.  So there's no problem
here.

QeS 'utlh:
> chIrgh leng wIlengtaHvIS maH tay' -
> Qunma' wIQummeH He;
> QunvaD matorlaHmeH maH Hoch,
> wIvuvmeH; qup, ghu, chaj, maqoch,
> Quchqu'bogh loD be' je!
>
> To walk together to the kirk,
> And all together pray,
> While each to his great Father bends,
> Old men, and babes, and loving friends,
> And youths and maidens gay!

Since the speaker seems to be travelling in a group even when not counting
the additional {nuv QaQ}, the {maH} is not a problem.

Also: An opportunity to use {SenwI' rIlwI' je}?

QeS 'utlh:
> I'll have to go away and think about this. My Klingon brain can't see a
> problem with {leng tIq vIlengpu'} "I have travelled a long journey", and
> especially so in a poetic context.

It's actually fine.  I had no problem understanding it, and it does seem
like an obvious way to use the verb.  I'd probably use it that way myself.
I just pointed it out because I wasn't sure if we knew for sure {leng}
could take the trip as its object.  (We know that it can take the
destination as its object, but I don't think we know that the object is
restricted to only the destination, do we?)

--
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120710/a1d5ad72/attachment.html>