[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh chorghmaH wa': narghbe'chugh SuvwI' qa' taH may'

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> Gore alert!  This 'ay' contains carefully researched gruesome violence,
> copious amounts of blood, and death.

bIQulchu'. chomerbe'. lut 'ay' vIcherghrup...

> Also large blocks of text, because
> there's almost no dialogue.

...'ej vItIvrup. chaq mu'mey pab je vIbuS 'ej lut'e' vInuDbe'.

> Dop chob machvo' ghoS chang'eng. wej rIQ SuvwI' 'ach HoHmeH 'eb
> lujonqu'ruplaw'. Doy'choHlaw' 'ach tonSaw' Dun lu'aghtaH. much rur 'ach
> ghetbe'mo' much rurbe'. ngol HungpIn 'ej chuQ.

<chaQ> DaghItlhHa'ba'.

> way'Ha'DI' be'tlhar woS bIng
> DuQchu' HungpIn betleH pach.

pach 'oH'a' betleH megh'an'e'? 'uchlaHbe'. SoQchoHlaHbe'. pach rurbe' 'e' vIQub.

> purDI' qev wa' Hugh rur wab.

wa' Hugh rur'a'? be'tlhar Hugh buQlu'. bejwI' Hugh vIqel net chupDI',
loQ vIDachmoHlu'. wa' ghogh'e' rur'a' wab?

> jachpu'chugh
> be'tlhar Qoybe'pu' vajar. Hugh SIjbe'pu' betleH. woS neH DuQ. narghmeH nach
> pep 'e' nID be'tlhar

(see my later comment)

> 'ach ta'choHDI' betleH SalmoH HungpIn. qaStaHvIS may'
> pIj HoH wa' Qagh.

(pIj HoH 'e' vIHon. wa'logh neH HoH. :-P jIqIDnISchoH. meqwIj yajlu' 'e' vIpIH.)

> bIQtIqHom moj 'etlh ghoSlI'bogh be'tlhar 'Iw. jatlh HungpIn, "bIjeghrup'a'?"
> janglaHmeH be'tlhar loQ betleH chuQHa'.

<chaQHa'>

> nuj poSmoHDI' be'tlhar jatvo' jeq
> betleH QIn net leghlaH. nujvo' 'Iw tuy' jatlhlaw'taHvIS 'ach chuSmo'
> bejwI'pu', mu'meyDaj QoylaHbe' vajar. jeghbe'law'. nuj SoQta'DI' loQ betleH
> jIrmoH HungpIn. HoHmeH Hugh nejlaw' 'etlh. junmeH nogh be'tlhar 'ej
> betleHDaj'e' jopqu'. HungpIn chor DuQpu'. DoH HungpIn 'e' nID

Earlier you wrote {nach pep 'e' nID be'tlhar}. I didn't suggest
putting {be'tlhar} after the first verb and before {'e'} when I
encountered it, though I would have considered it easier to read.
Since you did choose to do that with {HungpIn} here, I'll mention the
earlier phrasing and let you decide whether it's worth changing.

>'ach
> be'tlharvo' betleH yuvmeH

DoHtaHvIS HungpIn mumISmoH <be'tlharvo' betleH yuvmeH>. wot pIm DaHech'a'?

> chuQHa'nIS

<chaQHa'nIS>

>'ej bot chor DuQtaHbogh 'etlh. ' nargh
> 'e' nIDqa'DI' be'tlhar, pumchoH 'ej HungpInDaq betleH raD porghDaj. ravDaq
> pum cha' yaSpu'. 'Iw lughaychoH. HungpIn 'uSDu' jojDaq 'aD'a' SIjpu'law'
> be'tlhar betleH. chuSqu'be'choH bejwI'pu' choQ nguvmoHtaHvIS tlhIngan 'Iw.

(Hurgh'a' 'Iw? wov'a'? Doq 'ej wov 'e' vIlegh vIneH.)

> wej HeghmoH be'tlhar QIH. reghtaHvIS HungpIn SIQlaHlI'chugh 'ej Hugh
> QanlaHchugh QaplaH. nach tlhabmoH 'e' nIDqa' 'ach ravDaq chuQqu'qa'

<chaQqu'qa'>

> HungpIn.
> be'tlhar QoghIj DuQlaw'pu'. SupchoH ghIvDu'Daj nachDaj je 'ej betleHDaq
> puy'eghchoH.

nuv Dellaw'DI' <puy> jIbuSnIS. lo'vam lajchu'be' yabwIj.

> SuvwI'pu' QaHruplaw' bejwI'pu' 'ach wej Heghpu'mo' jeSwI'pu'
> pagh jeghpu'mo', taHtaH may'.

This doesn't sound right to me, but repeating the {wej} after {pagh}
doesn't sound right either. Changing it to use {V-pu'be'} instead of
{wej V-pu'} yields something that I don't trip over: {...'ach
Heghpu'be'mo' jeSwI'pu' 'ej jeghpu'be'mo', taHtaH may'.}

> mI'taHvIS be'tlhar porgh bejtaHvIS vajar,
> HeghlI' 'e' Sov, 'ach cha'Hu' ram bel qawmoH. ngugh voqbe'pu'. 'Il'a'?
>
> betleH chaghDI' HungpIn 'ej vIHbe'choHDI' tlhabchoH be'tlhar nach. nujDaj
> teb 'Iw. jatlh 'e' nIDlaw' 'ach mu'mey vo'laHbe'. poStaH mInDu'Daj 'ej
> vIH'eghtaH ghIvDu'Daj 'ach tlhuHbe' 'ej ghupbe' 'ej tuSbe'.
> tlhuH 'e' lIjlaw'.

I don't think this sentence says what it should. I suggest {tlhuHnIS
'e' lIjlaw'} or {tlhuHmeH mIw lIjlaw'}.

> HeghtaHvIS poStaH mInDu'Daj. cha' SuvwI'pu'vaD jach bejwI'pu' 'ej
> chobmeyvo' chuSqa' beymey. lut Dun luQoy qorDu'chaj.[150][151]

lut Dun wIlaD je maH.

-- ghunchu'wI'