[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh cha'maH wa': ghochlaH

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

jImoDnIS. lut'e' vIchovbe'. QaghHeymo' neH jIghaq 'e' vInab.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> chobDaq luyov lotlhwI'pu'.

<-Daq> DaneHbej'a'? lughbe'law' <lu->.

> quvbogh yaS puS pIlmoH neHpu' neH vajar 'ach qaSlI' QuD.

<neHpu'>vo' <-pu'> yInge' 'ej <pIlmoH>Daq yIlan.

Even if there's no {'e'} before {neH}, it's still a sentence as object
and the second verb isn't supposed to have an aspect suffix.

> jonwI' choQ lughoSlaw'lI'. maj. meH lujonnIS 'ach
> meH jonta'chugh vay', jonwI'choQ SeHbe'taHvIS, ngeplaH jonwI'pu'.

mu' 'ar luchenmoH <jonwI'> <choQ> je?

The best comment I could make on the non-problem of {jonwI'pu'} would
be not to mention it at all, but I want to make sure you know I read
right past it without even noticing the theoretical ambiguity until I
typed {jonwI'} myself.

> "Qo'," jatlh Hota'ro'. "tojmeH 'eb bIH. chay' lurgh pImDaq wIngeHlaH?"

_DI_ngeHlaH

> tlheDpu'DI' ngIvwI' ghoSqa' ghom.

mu'tlhegh vIjatlhmeH <ngIvwI'> <ghoSqa'> botlhDaq jIyev. ngIvwI' ghoS
ghom 'e' yajHa'be'meH laDwI', pa' lI' yevwI' Degh.

> jatlh ghutar, "nIch pa', lupDujHom choQ ghap wIjonlaH."

Daj. <nuH pa'> <nuHmey pa'> ghap vIpIH. TKD {nuHmey} "arsenal"

> HeghDajmo'
> Dujvam quv cherqa'laHchugh, vaj tlhIngan wo' HubtaHvIS Heghbej.

Qatlhlaw' mu'tlheghHom wa'DIch. qaq'a' {Dujvam quvqa'moHlaHchugh
HeghDaj}? It seems to me that {X[DIp] cherqa'} is less "Klingon" than
{X[wot]qa'moH} in general.

-- ghunchu'wI'