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

[De'vID]

Qov:
>>> nuHmeyDaj chaH neH."

Maybe use a verb like {Da} or {'oS} instead of {chaH}?

ghunchu'wI':
>> 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?

{nuHmeyDaj neH chaH}

Which applies first, the {neH} or the {-Daj}?  Can this be read as "they're
her only weapons (and she has no other weapon)"?  (And if not, how would
one express this latter idea?)

I read the above as "they're only her weapons", "they're her weapons and
they're not anything else", in a literal sense.  Is this literally the
case, or does she merely treat them or think of them that way?  I think the
English "they're only her X" is idiomatic for "they're merely X to her",
but this idiom may not carry into Klingon.

I think {ghaHvaD nuHmey neH chaH} is clearer.


Qov:
> yaj. It's the way it is because I don't want it read as "They want her
weapons.". To my understanding, neH after a boy trivializes the noun and
after a verb, the whole phrase.

Boy?

--
De'vID


-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120716/cfed887b/attachment.html>