[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh wa'maH cha': DaH puch luSay'moHbe'

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
>> (lagh ghaH'a'? numlu'pu' 'e' vIqawbej. patlh tetlh vInuD...va. lagh
>> mojlaw' ne'. muyIv yabwIj Duy'vam.)
>
> Dajqu' Duy'Heyvetlh. patlh po'wI' jIHbe' 'ach tetlh vIqawlaH, vaj moch vIngu'laH.

DaHjaj yaHwIjDaq Sengvam vIqel. muqeS vay': M*A*S*H vIqawnIS neH. toH,
QaQchu' qeSvam. lut'a'vetlh yaSpu' pongmey patlhmey je vISov. tlham
vIyajlaw'. vaj ghaytan 'op patlhmey vIqawlaHqu'.

>>> Hu'taHvIS ghutar jatlh Hota'ro', "vIlajqangbej, HoD. Qu' ngeDbe' lajHa'be'
>>> tlhIngan yaS." tlhoS morgh Hota'ro'. maj.
>>
>> **
>> qatlh <maj> tu'lu'? morghruplaw' Hota'ro' 'e' parHa''a' vajar?
>
> vajar qechmey DalaDtaH. Qu' ngeDHa' HevmeH qapmo' Hota'ro', bel vajar. chaq mu'vetlh vIlo'nIS.
>
> Instead of tlhoS morgh Hota'ro', I should put Qu' HevmeH tlhoS qap Hota'ro'.
>
> [...]
>
>>> pur Hota'ro' 'ach morghlaHbe'.
>>
>> **
>> morghbe' neH 'e' vIlajchu', 'a morghlaHqu'be''a'?
>
> qapta'mo' jon'eghpu'. lajnIS. QaH'a' choH vIchuppu'bogh?

HIja'. DaH Hota'ro' ghu' vIyajlaH.


>>> 'ol Hota'ro'. jatlh
>>> vajar, "gharon yISam 'ej yIHoHQo'. yIjatlh. SoHvaD quv tob neHqu'law'.
>>> yIvummoH. Hegh qotlh 'e' Har. Qochbe' 'Iv?
>>
>> **
>> lugh'a' <Qochbe'>? <QochlaH 'Iv> vIpIH. ghaytan qech vIyajbe'. ghelbej'a'?
>
> quvwI' nej vajar. chaq mISmoHbogh qech vItu'be.
>
>> The context suggests that this could be a rhetorical question, but if
>> that's what this is, the question seems backwards. If it's a true
>> interrogative, for whom is it intended?

Hota'ro' tlhob'a' vajar? gharon tlhob Hota'ro' 'e' chup'a'?
jatlhtaHvIS vajar ghopDu' vIleghchugh chaq qech vIyajchoH.

>>> Hota'ro' merchugh Sov, nom So'.
>>
>> **
>> I'm just going to point out what I believe to be strained grammar
>> here, then shut up about it.
>
> tIcha'taH. jIQochbe'.
>
> Hota'ro' merbe'law' Sov, 'a chaq nom So' neH.
>
> That may introduce a new problem. Is the antecedent clear for the object of So'?

It's clear to me, but I already knew what it means from the previous
version. I might have said {Hota'ro' mer Sov 'e' 'angbe' qabDaj},
though it would take an additional sentence to preserve the {nom So'}.

>> batlh SaHqu'mo' ghutar, quvHa'wI' 'omrupchu'.
>> Sa' qeHqu'mo' Hota'ro', chaq lumoHmeH vangqang.
>> nuq 'oH vajar meq'e'? woQ mIgh muS'a' neH?
>
> 'e' Daghel 'e' vIpIHbe' 'ach jang 'ay'mey veb 'e' vIHar.

Sov'a' vIloS...Qo'! jIDo'. jIloSnISbe'. jIlaDnIS neH!

-- ghunchu'wI'