[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh wejmaH wej: pumDI' lojmIt

[Robyn Stewart]

On 2012-07-15, at 23:16, Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> ghItlhpu' Qov, jatlh:
>> 233: pumDI' lojmIt
> 
> Were you aiming for the literal-metaphorical duality with this title? If
> so, it's very neatly done - majQa'

I try to have dual meanings for most titles. 

> taH:
> 
>> joy'wI' pa'vo' ghoS vajar, ghutar je.
> 
> So qImyal doesn't have a dedicated joy'meH pa'? I am disappoint. :)

I'm confused why you think she doesn't. They walk out of the cell that has walls covered in torture implements, they're not in the brig, they ask where they are and are told qImyal pa'mey. How can U make it clearer that that is exactly what she has?

>> SaH QeHbogh mang law'[359].
> 
> Hm. I see your quandary here.
> 
> Personally I think negh law' is fine in the same way as nIm law' is fine.
> Without context the only sensible reading of nIm law' is "much milk", not
> "many milks", so I have no problem with negh law'. With that said, mangpu'
> law' has a nice connotation of "angry warriors everywhere" so I think it
> would work too. I'm not a fan of mang law', but I can't really articulate
> why.

mangpu' law' - yeah that works

> (poD vay')
> 
>> pa'vam lu'elmeH lotlhwI'pu', lojmItvetlh ghorlaw'pu'.
> 
> *lu*ghorlaw'pu', qar'a'?

HIja'. 

>> DaH latlh lojmIt lughorlI' 'ach lojmItvam HoS law' lojmIt wa'DIch HoS
>> puS. baS naQmey, nISwI'mey je lo'taH.
> 
> The final sentence here feels a little stranded. I'd put lughormeH in
> front of it to retain the connection to the lughorlI' of the previous
> sentence.

maj.

>> bIt vajar. Hung patmey law' ghaj qImyal jatlh qaH'eng,
> 
> Is this meant to be a direct quote or an indirect one? If indirect I'd
> expect to see 'e' jatlh rather than just jatlh alone.

I think others would jump on me for 'e' jatlh. Klingon doesn't really do indirect speech. As it gives you pause, I'll make it ... 'e' maq qaH'eng. 

>> 'ej mejpu'mo' qaH'eng QaHlaHbe'lI'. jatlh vay', «pujlaw lojmIt Dung.
> 
> {pujlaw'}Daq qaghwI' 

narghtaH bIH. 

> (poD vay')
> 
>> pay' vay' qaw vajar: not Hota'ro' ngaghmeH tlhobta' vajar.
> 
> I'm not sure I like the {X-meH tlhob} construction; it feels a lot like
> an Englishism, "he asked to X" rendered directly into Klingon. It might
> just be my instincts, of course; I'd've gone with ngagh 'e' tlhob.

I'll think about that one. 
> 
> Also, as it stands, it reads as "vajar requested to never have sex with
> Hota'ro'". Is that what you intended, or should {not} be in front of
> tlhobta' instead (so "vajar never requested to have sex with Hota'ro'")?

bIlugh. . 

>> vajar SaHqu'pu' 'ej puqchaj boghmoH neHbejpu'.
> 
> As ghunchu'wI' pointed out not long ago, since verb-neH is in many ways
> parallel to X 'e' Y, an aspect suffix may not be able to appear on neH
> in this kind of construct. I'll leave that up to you, though.

bepwI'pu' vIQuchmoH vIneH.

>> «Hota'ro'!» jatlh vajar, «DuveltaHvIS jaghlI' 'Iw
>> bI'IH!»
> 
> vajar, you silver-tongued devil, you!

choHaghmoH. 

>> jatlh vajar, «qa'chajDaq lunabtaH[360].
> 
> We know from KGT that qa' takes -pu' in the plural: ghe'torvo' narghDI'
> qa'pu' "when spirits escape from Gre'thor".

They're a different kind of spirit, though. They don't have bodies. Not sure why this makes a difference to me. 

>> qung veghchoH negh, HoHbeHtaHvIS nuHmeychaj.
> 
> Huzzah! -beH gets a look in.
> 
>> «Ha'!» jatlh Hota'ro' 'ej jachbogh negh ghoghmey lutlha'.
> 
> Just tlha': ghoghmey is explicitly plural.

Editing victim: probably started as negh. 

> You can always use chaH to be
> unambiguous, and because without it one could interpret this as being
> Hota'ro' alone who followed the screaming voices, I think it'd be best
> to use it here.

maj. 

>> pa' lu'elDI' Dachlaw' qImyal. pa' DojmoH Dochmey wagh.
> 
> Ugh... if this were in English I'd tell you to buy a thesaurus. :P "The
> expensive things" seems a bit blah. You don't like 'aH "paraphernalia"?

'aH I prefer for other contexts, like Dochmey related to a task, or more gatherable Dochmey. I'm happy with Dochmey here because it's through vajar's eyes and he doesn't see a lot of this kind of thing. He definitely sees Dargh HIvje'mey not tu'lummey. In another context he'd see tep. You and SuStel's English teacher can wring your hands over this one, but there being no more specific word for 'artwork' or 'furnishings' I'm not ashamed of Doch. 

>> tlhoy'meyDaq may'mey tIQ cha' tlhImmey, nagh beQmey je. vajar retlhDaq
>> SaH Qo'noS yuQ 'oSbogh Hew. bIQ'a' ghargh'a'mey DubDu'Daq lIghtaH yuQ
>> moQ. bochbogh nagh qIj HotmeH yev vajar.
> 
> ghu' DaDelchu'. 'IH 'ej Doj 'ej yabwIjDaq vInajlaHchu'!

vIqonchoHDI' potlh Hew 'ach potlhbe'choHDI' vIparHa'mo' vIpol. DaparHa'mo' je jIbel.