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

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

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

mujangpu' 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.
jIjang jIH, jIjatlh:

> 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*".
jatlh De'vID:

> 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).


To be honest, no. You're right, the {maH} *was* supposed to be the speakerand the tlhejwI'(or tlhejwI'pu', however many doesn't matter).

jIH:
> chIrgh leng wIlengtaHvIS maH tay' -

> Qunma' wIQummeH He;

> QunvaD matorlaHmeH maH Hoch,

> wIvuvmeH; qup, ghu, chaj, maqoch,

> Quchqu'bogh loD be' je!


De'vID:
> Also: An opportunity to use {SenwI' rIlwI' je}?
Ah, that's one I hadn't considered. It's possible, but I'll have to see ifI can work it in (I think I'll have to drop a bit of something in order todo so).

jIH:
> My Klingon brain can't see a problem with {leng tIq vIlengpu'} "I have> travelled a long journey"
De'vID:> 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.
Good to know. I don't want to be completely pulling usages out of thin air!

> I just pointed it out because I wasn't sure if we knew for sure
 {leng}> could take the trip as its object.
Oh, absolutely. No, to the best of my knowledge we don't have any canon forthat.
QeS 'utlh