[tlhIngan Hol] Why do we fall ?

[mayqel qunenoS]

jIH:
> pumpu'DI' batman Qup, ghaHvaD jatlhta' vavDaj:
ghunchu'wI':
> Batman vav Hoghlu'pu', qar'a'? yIntaHvIS vavDaj, wej Batman mojta'.

batman yIn lubopbogh wanI''e' DIqelchu'chugh vaj bIlugh; 'ach chIch
*batman* mu' vIlo'ta'. qatlh ? nuv rap chaHmo' batman'e' bruce
wayne'e' je.

jIH:
> toH, ngugh taH vavDaj:
ghunchu'wI':
> I think you mean {ghIq} "subsequently", not {ngugh} "at that time". You could also just say {vaj} "thus".

Well, yes and no.. In the strict sense of the events and klingon
grammar, then you're right; {ghIq} was definitely the way to go.

'ach the problem with {ghIq} -if I used it in place of {ngugh}- was
that it gave off a wrong *feeling* of the events being described. I
indeed considered writing {toH, ngugh taH vavDaj}. But this sentence
*felt* (to me), as if:

a. batman fell
b. his father went for coffee
c. and then he decided to talk to him

I know that the {ghIq} does not "inherently" specify the "time which
passed", so I'm not saying that my choice of {ngugh}, was indeed
"grammatically" right. It's just that for the intented meaning I
*felt* that the {ngugh} was superior.

ghunchu'wI'
> {taH} means something like "keep existing". The idea you're probably
> going for here would be well expressed by {jatlhqa'} "resume speaking".

oh yeah.. you're 100% right on this one. I used the {taH}, because on
several occasions I saw it being used in this list when someone is
quoting another. Obviously a wrong choice, which stuck with me for
quite some time now.. I reprimanded my linguistics officer for being
so careless, and I will not repeat the same mistake again.

ghunchu'wI':
> maDub'eghmeH 'utbe' pumpu'ghach.

vuDlIj vIyajlaH, 'ach jIQoch. 'ej jIQochmo' vuDwIj vIQIjnISba'..

maboghDI', 'ej qo'vamDaq wIpaw, yabmajDaq pagh De' tu'lu'. qo'
wItu'meH, yIn wIyajlaHmeH pIj maQaghnIS. qaSDI' Qaghmey, 'oy'
wIyIntaHvIS, qaStaHvIS wanI'vam neH, maDublaH.

DaH, HIyajHa'Qo' ! jIjatlhbe', 'oy' Qaghmey je vIparHa'.. mu'meyvam
vIjatlhbe'bej. 'ach Do'Ha' 'ut wanI'meyvam.

ghunchu'wI', yIghel'egh: puqvaD jatlhlu': qul yIHotQo' ! 'ach qul
Hotbe'chugh puq, vaj ghojlaHbe' puq. vay' meQlaH qul; 'e' HarlaHbe'
puq.

'ej latlh ghantoH vIghItlh vIneH..

chay' tlhIngan Hol wIghojtaH ? Holvam wIghIlthtaH, 'ej wIghItlhtaHvIS
maQaghtaH. ghIq wIlughmoHlu', 'ej wIlughmoHlu'mo' maDublaH.

not jIQagh net jalchugh; vaj chay' jIghojlaH ? chay' jIDublaH ?

meqmeyvammo', Do'Ha' 'ut Qaghmey..

qunnoH jan puqloD

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 7:03 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> mIp'av:
>> bIlugh: KGT pp. 22-4.
>> pabha'DI', morskangan rur. jaSHa' Haghqa'chugh, morskangan gha Lieven 'e' vIpI.
>>qunnoq, jIHmo' maDachchoHchugh jItlhIj.
>
> mIp'av, DaH jIyajchu' ! qatlho' !
>
> qunnoH
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Ed Bailey
> <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com> wrote:
>> qoy' qunnoq, jatlh:
>> please, tell me that this sentence is a dialect and not ta' Hol,
>> because if it is ta' Hol I'll blow my brains out !
>>
>> bIlugh: KGT pp. 22-4.
>>
>> pabha'DI', morskangan rur. jaSHa' Haghqa'chugh, morskangan gha Lieven 'e'
>> vIpI.
>>
>> qunnoq, jIHmo' maDachchoHchugh jItlhIj.
>>
>> ~mIp'av
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>>