[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh cha'maH: raSmey lughorlu'taH

[Robyn Stewart]

At 13:54 '?????' 7/11/2012, you wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> > 220
> > raSmey lughorlu'taH
>
>Do'Ha'. DaH morghwI' ghom boqbe'bej HungpIn tlhach.

batlh potlh law' raS potlh puS.

> > tlhoy' yIbmeyvo' narghchoH SIp.
>
>to'vam nap vIpIHpu'.

'enteprayDaq SIp SuQ chu'laH'a' meH?

> > SIp SuQmo' puQbej vajar.
>
>So''eghbe' SIpvam'e'. nom ghovlu'mo', junlu' SIbI' net nIDlaH.
>
> > SIghbe'meH SIp,
> > tlhuHDaj polchoH 'ej mInDu' SoQchoHmoH. "SIQ!" jatlh ghogh. 
> "yaHraj pol! SIp
> > wIchu'Ha'ta'DI' bong wa' wInoplaw'. wItI'lI'!"
>
>maj. to' lupIHpu' je latlh 'ej lu'ompu'.

HIja'. lo' law' lojmItmey poSmoHtaHvIS HubmeH patmey chu'Ha'.

> > tachvo' QaDmoHwI' DIr yIQ
> > ghomHa' vay'. qabDaj QanmeH wa' lo' vajar. jatlhqa' ghogh, "Qobbe' SIp.
> > vo'wI' neH 'oH. may' SIp wIchu'Ha'ta'." majQa', chamwI'pu'.
>
>meHDaq moghchoH ya 'e' vIleghlaw'. may' SIp Qotlhlu'pu' 'ej ngeplaHbe'
>meH SeHlaw.

bIlugh!  vIleghlaH je.

> > raS 'emDaq
> > tortaH vajar. Qeqrupqa'. chuS SIp, ghaywI'mey veghtaHvIS 'ach voQmoHbe'.
>
>I thought there was evidence that {voQ} was transitive, but I can't find it.

And I thought there was evidence that ghor swung both ways, but 
apaarently you can only ghor something.

> > pay' lojmIt vegh nagh rurbogh jan. vo'meH jaDlaw'ta' vay'.
> >
> > "jorwI'!" jatlh vay'. jorwI'Hey ghoS ghutar, woH 'ej lojmItDaq jaDqu'.
>
>jaqqu'!

ghovmo', jorbe' 'e' Sov.

>(yIt'a'? qet'a'? nom ghoS'a'? QIt ghoS'a'? ghu' vIyajchu'meH
>yapbe'law' <ghoS> neH.)

bIbep 'e' vIqIm.  {jorwI'HeyDaq Sup ghutar} vItam.

> > ghutar ghop mejDI' tlhIch tlhuDchoH. DaH voQmoHbogh SIp larghlaH vajar. SIp
> > tlhuDwI' 'oH jan'e'. pa' HIvchoH 'avwI' ghom chu'. nISwI' beH qeng 'ej
> > qabDu'chaj QantaH mIvmey, SIp botbogh janmey'e' je. qabDu'chaj 'angbe'.
>
>quv Hutlh HoHbogh tlhIngan 'ach qabDaj 'angbe'bogh. va, QaDmoHwI' DIr
>tuQtaH 'Iv?

rut muj vIttlheghmey.

> > Hoch
> > lojmItmey vegh 'e' lunID, SIp tlhuDwI'mey jaDtaHvIS. lojmIt botmeH Dup
> > pIHbe'ba'pu'. vIDbogh tlhInganpu' chech pIHpu' 'ach mangghom lutu'.
>
>({lutu'} looks weird, y'know?)

vISov. yoylaw'

> > lojmItmey veghtaHvIS negh wa'DIch, HIv 'ej luchchaj jon qIQwI'pu'.
>
>You might consider moving {qIQwI'pu'} immediately after {HIv} to help
>clarify that the {veghbogh negh} is on the *receiving* end of the
>attack. Then you might need to replace {luchchaj} with {negh luch} to
>reclarify the immediate past owners of the {luch}.

jIQochbe'.

> > lujlI'
> > to' 'e' tlhojDI' negh, bachchoH, vaj bachchoH je qIQwI'pu', 'ej jorwI'chaj
> > lutlh jaD. HeghlI'bogh mang bep QoylaH vajar. chuSqu' tIHmey, muD DuQtaHvIS
> > 'ej tatmey larghlaH vajar.
>
>pIwmey DelmeH, lut laDlu'bogh QaQ law' lut bejlu'bogh QaQ puS.
>
> > wewchoH raSDaj 'ej tujchoH, qIpDI' nISwI' tIHmey.
>
>jumlaw' <raSDaj>, 'ach Qap. chaq loQ <ghaH tlhop raS> vImaS jIH.

vaj vIchoHpu'.

> > vajar pu' tIH ghovpu' vay' 'ej ghaHDaq QeqchoHta'.
>
>toH! "Chekhov's gun" mojpu' vajar pu'. jIHaghqu'.

And all for what I believed to be a terminology error, but later 
found was perfectly acceptable usage. This story would be a lot less 
interesting if I hadn't sent it in installments, forcing me to fight 
on all the battlefields I had chosen.

(Oh today in the airplane I was listening to "Learn Italian" podcasts 
and they gave the Italian for "and they lived happily ever 
after."  I'm fairly sure that the Klingon version of that is 
something like, "And they all died honourable deaths."

> > bachtaHvIS vajar, Dup--may'vam Dup, qIQwI'pu' Dup, qImyal Dup je--qeltaH.
> > tetlI'bogh raS DoHchoH 'ach rInchoH may'. bachbe'choHpu' Hoch. 
> buQbe'choHpu'
> > qImyal qaS.
>
>**
>QaS
>
> > HeDtaH HochHom. Heghpu' 'op. lojmItDaq Sum QottaH HeghlI'bogh
> > mang.
>
>**
>lojmIt SumDaq

I could swear I looked that usage up in HolQeD. Sum is tricky:

WM: So, could that deictic anchor be shifted by using an indirect object?
     Like if I wanted to say, "You are near the table," could I say {SoHvaD
     Sum raS}?

MO: No. You'd use {-Daq}: {SoHDaq Sum raS}. This throws the orientation
     away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener
     (marked, stated: "at you, where you are"). But you don't always
     need to state this overtly. Context is critical. For example:

     {qagh largh SuvwI' ghung. Sum qagh 'e' Sov.}

The real problem with that sentence is the extra verb QottaH. I've 
just worked twelve hours at altitude on five hours sleep, so I'm not 
going to fix it now. Maybe I want lojmIt retlhDaq

lojmItDaq Sum HeghlI'bogh mang.

> > Dung bej. vajarDaq QeqtaH mInDu'Daj.
>
>{Dung bej} came through as an idiomatic "lie on her back", so I didn't
>notice the near-contradiction at first. She's "watching" upward, yet
>"aiming" her eyes at vajar. It's not a big deal, and it isn't really a
>contradiction. The metaphoric {Qeq mIn} phrasing suggests to me that
>you recognized it, but in case you didn't I figured I'd point it out.

I figured {Dung/bIng bej} as an idiom that was not interpreted as 
bejtaH. I'd think a corpse could Dung bej, just as a headless corpse 
in English could be face up.

> > tlhuH 'e' nID 'ach HughDaj tebmo'
> > 'Iw, ghagh neH.
>
>There are many places in the story where {teb} is used in the sense of
>"a container is-filled-with a substance". I think I only found it
>worth mentioning once, when it was used shortly afterward in the
>different sense of "a container is-filled-by a person". I don't think
>the first sense is something we've seen in canon, and I think at least
>some of the places the story uses it that way it could be replaced
>with {bot} or {waQ}. I'm now making a one-time blanket mention of it,
>and you can decide whether or not it's something to worry about.

This is a sort of thing that I do want to fix. This one can be
'ach 'Iwmo' buy'mo' HughDaj.

I went through with search and replace and used an almost amusing 
variety of strategies to repair the others.  I also looked for 
problems with ghor used intransitively, which was a pain, because I 
use the noun ghor a lot. But yes, anyone, any word that I'm using in 
contradiction to canon, tell me and I will fix it everywhere.

> > be' ghaH. mIv tuQbe'taH, 'ach chaq teqpu'. jagh, jup ghap
> > ngu'laHbe' vajar. ghaytan wo' toy'qang. tlhuHlaHmeH mang DopDaq tlhe'moH
> > vajar. be' Dub 'elpu' nISwI' tIH 'e' leghlaH. mang ro qoD Qaw'pu'. Heghpa'
> > wejlogh tlhuH neH. jatlh qIQwI', "bong ghaHDaq bach may' qochDaj 'eltaHvIS.
> > Qu'maj ngeDmoHpu'."
>
>rInbe'chu' Qu'.

bInepbe'.

> > Hegh tlhIngan mang 'e' pay' vajar. chaq 'eb ghajchugh
> > qIQ 'e' maS.

Hey, you forgot to point and laugh at this one. I'm really trying not 
to do it. You missed it because I didn't use the perfective, perhaps. 
It's still wrong.

>'ach pIpyuS pach DaSop DaneHchugh pIpyuS puS DaghornIS. lomvo'
> > nuHmey, latlh luch lI' je boS qIQwI'.
>
>wa' yay luchav. taghbej noH, DaH 'e' Sov Hoch.

che'jaj may' Hem. :-)

- Qov