[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh cha'maH cha': 'omwI'pu'

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> jatlh ya 'ay' Sogh, "bIHeghpa' Hegh je neghma' Qup."

M*A*S*H-mo' veS chut wa' vIghoj: Hegh negh Qup.

> lojmItDaq Sumbogh mang
> Qorgh vajar 'e' bej'a' yaS? jatlh Sogh, "qaSov, vajar HoD. qImyalvaD
> qapojmeH QonoSmeylIj vIHaDta'. bIpujchugh, tlhoy' mang Qup DaSaHmo' bIpuj.

tlhoy' mang SaH'a'? ghobe'. lojmIt mang SaH.

**
<tlhoy> DaghItlhHa'ba'.

> maSuvtaHvIS, ngIq negh SaHbe'chu' qImyal Sa' 'e' yIqaw.

yabwIj bIv <ngIq negh>. ghantoH vIvoqlaHbogh vIleghpu'pa', vIlajbe'.

> nuHmeyDaj chaH neH."

munuQ <neH> lo'vam.

Whenever I write something like this, I usually end up changing it to
put {neH} after the object instead of after the pronoun. On the other
hand, when I write it that way in the first place, I often end up
changing it to be the way you wrote it. Do you want to trivialize the
idea of "be her weapons", or do you want to say they are her weapons
and nothing more? I have the feeling there is an important distinction
to be made between the two. My inclination today is not to trivialize
the "to be", and I think {neH} should be moved.

Does that make sense?

> vajar Delchu'bogh ngoDvetlh'e' tu'be'pu' vajar 'ej QonoSmeyDajDaq tu'pu'
> Sogh. yaSpu' val ra' qImyal Sa' 'e' qawnIS je vajar. jatlh, "ghIj qet
> jaghmeyjaj, Sogh." jangbe' yaS.

law'choH vIttlheghmey 'e' vItu'.

> chobmeyDaq moD ghom. Do'law' chaH. tachDaq chaHbe'taH 'e' Sovba' Hung 'ach
> naDev DachtaH 'omwI'pu'. motlh Dat chaw'mey 'olbogh 'avwI'pu' ghom vay'.

(tam. tlhoy tam.)

> 'avwI' nejDI' narghta'bogh qama' reH 'avwI' Sambej. pay' chob lubot loS
> 'avwI'pu'.

**
qechvaD muj <bot>. Qapbe' "block, prevent, prohibit". <waQ> DaneHlaw':

> HeD 'e' qelchoHDI' vajar chaH 'emDaq ghogh Qoylu'. jatlh,
> "pemev!" luDechlu'. loQ pIm cha' 'avwI'pu' HIpmey.
>
> jatlh ghutar, "Hu'tegh! qImyal QaS le' ghaH.[261] matlhchu'. QongtaHvIS Sa'
> lu'av." 'ej DaH QeHlaw' chaH.
> [261] Still can't quite believe I'm supposed to use ghaH for two guys just
> because troops is grammatically singular. Grumble.

{QaS} is singular, but might it be singular in the way {qorDu'} is?
Would it work to say {QaS 'oH} instead of {QaS ghaH}? Try it in
English: "Yikes! It's the Swiss Guard!"

> "ghaH!" jatlh wa' 'avwI' le'. moch ghaHlaw'. vajar SIqmeH wanchoH DeSDaj
> naQ. nISwI' beHmey qeQlI' latlhpu'. 'avwI' bejqu'taHvIS vajar, Hung HotlhwI'
> Sum tu'. vajar Hegh qonchu'. betleHDaj pep vajar. vaQ tonSawvetlh 'ej nISwI'
> tIH 'ommeH loQ yoD DalaH je betleH. loQ vajar waQ latlhpu'. wej
> vangbejpu'mo' 'avwI'pu', bachbe'taH je qIQwI'pu'. chaq Sonmo'
> 'avwI'pu'vam'e' HIvqangbe' *veS* beq.

chay' <Son> DaHech? vIyajbe'. vay' Sonlu'chugh, Qu' gheS SonwI' 'ej
vumbe'choH nuv Sonbogh, qar'a'?

I can't reconcile my understanding of {Son} with the situation as
presented. HIchuH.

> jatlh vajar, "qImyalvaD tuqopqa' 'e' bongIl'a'? not jIHeS. De' le' vIpegh
> 'e' maq petaQvetlh

tlhaQ. QutchoHDI' vajar loQ jIyay'. ghIq ghu''a' vIqelqu'. qImyal woQ
Qaw'meH noH taghta'! jagh Delchu' mu'vetlh HoS.

> 'ach not De'vetlh vIghaj. reH wo'vaD Hoch De'
> vIjonta'bogh vIlI'. wa'logh qama' SuD vI'avpu'mo' maghwI' jIH 'e' Harlaw'.
> tlhIngan wo' HoD matlh jIH, 'ach tojtaH 'ej neptaH 'ej beq ghongtaH 'ej
> HeSmey vItoghlaHbe'bogh ta'taH be'vetlh maw'. naDev quvwIj vIHubrup 'ej
> juHoHmeH nISwI' tIHmey bobachchugh tlhIH quvHa' law' ghaH quvHa' rap!"

vaQbej SoQvam.

> lubejlI' 'ej luQoylI' Hung HotlhwI'mey jIHbogh Hung yaSpu' law''e' 'e' tul
> vajar, DuvtaHvIS.

jIlaDnIStaHqu'!

-- ghunchu'wI'