[Tlhingan-hol] mIl'oD veDDIr SuvwI': 20. jeghbe' tlhInganpu'

[De'vID]

QeS:
> [jatlh'egh 'avtanDIl...]
> jIcheghbe'chugh, 'ej nuvvetlh vInejlI'bogh De' vIghojlaHbe'chugh, Qu'wIjvaD
> jIvumnIStaHqu'. qaSpu'DI' jaj wIwuqta'bogh jIH SermaDIn je, reghchoHlaw'
> mInDu'Daj;[3] 'utlhvaD SoQmey jatlhnISbogh jatlh ghaH.»

Ah. SermaDInvaD SawmeH 'avtanDIl jaj wuqlu'pu', qar'a'? That's the deadline?

QeS:
> «mulobchu' SermaDIn» jatlh'eghtaH,

tlhoy jatlh'egh 'avtanDIlvam. tlhIngan Dabe'. Hamlet rur jay'.

QeS:
> «'ej jIHeghpu' 'utlhvaD 'e' ja'. ghIq
> belHa'qu'choH nuvpu'Daj 'ej SaQqu'choH; chaHvaD 'eyHa'qu'[4] ghu'vetlh.
> qaSpu'qu'DI', 'ej Dat vIlengpu'qu'DI', ngugh jIcheghbej.»
>
> vaj Qub 'avtanDIl, SaQtaHvIS ghaH 'ej SottaHvIS. jatlh ghaH: «'o qeylIS![5]
> qatlh SanwIj'e' choHtaH 'u' jay'? va, qatlh lengvam vIghoSpu', pagh
> vIchavqu'taHvIS? tIqwIjvo' bel DapochHa'pu'; tIqwIjDaq bep'e' DaH Dapol.
> qaStaHvIS yInwIj Hoch, jISaQHa''eghchoHmoHlaHbe'.»[6]

I understood this, and with the meaning noted in your footnote. I
don't think it's possible to have {-be'} twice. Why do you think
{SaQHa'} doesn't work with this meaning?

To make it clearer, maybe split this into two smaller sentences? But I
think the sentence is clear enough as-is. What do others think?

QeS:
> ghIq jatlh'egh: «Qo'! jItuv'eghmoHchugh, qaq ghu'. vaj tugh jIHeghbe'qu'jaj,
> 'ItHa'moHlu'jaj tIqwIj. batlhHa' jIvangchugh,[7] pagh vIchav jISaQtaHvIS.
> San choHlaH pagh:

But earlier, he said: {qatlh SanwIj'e' choHtaH 'u' jay'?}, so clearly
{San choHlaH 'u'}, and {'u'} is not {pagh}! Remember that {pagh} can
mean "no one" but also "nothing".

I guess he's saying no *person* can change fate, so perhaps {San
choHlaHbe' nuv}?

-- 
De'vID