[tlhIngan Hol] excuse me, but how the jay' does -'eghmoH actually work ?

[SuStel]

On 9/18/2020 9:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> SuStel:
>> romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan.
> hmm.. Daj, 'a qay'law' vay';
>
> jatlh mu'tlhegh wa'DIch: "the romulans caused themselves to lack any
> other options". mu'tlheghvam wInuDjaj: wa' ghom tu'lu', 'op
> romuluSngan yugh ghomvam, 'ej vangmo' ghomvam romuluSnganpu', tagha'
> latlh DuHmey HutlhchoH ghomvam romuluSnganpu'.

*shrug* Could it be interpreted as two distinct groups of Romulans? In 
isolation, sure. In context, probably not. If you're talking about a 
story in which a group of Romulans did this, then did that, then 
squandered their remaining alternatives, if I say *romuluSnganpu'mo' 
latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan, *it's pretty clear that the first and 
last instance of the word refer to the same group. If you still can't 
get past that, you can add *-vam* to the second instance.

Your use of *ghomvam romuluSnganpu'* doesn't make sense. Do you mean 
*romuluSngan ghomvam*/This group of Romulans?/


> 'ej DaH {romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan} mu'tlhegh
> wInuDjaj:

I believe you are misusing *-jaj.* It's not used to suggest a course of 
action; it's used to express a wish or desire. *DaH mu'tlhegh wInuDjaj* 
means /Now ma//y it be that we examine the sentence./

Instead, you should just use an indicative or imperative sentence. *DaH 
mu'tlhegh wInuD*/Now we examine the sentence/ (Cf. *DaH matlhutlh*/Let's 
go get a drink, Power Klingon/) or *DaH mu'tlhegh yInuD*/Now examine the 
sentence./


> mu'tlheghvam vIlaDtaHvIS, cha' yajmeH DuH vItu':
>
> DuH wa': wa' romuluSngan ghom tu'lu'.
> DuH cha': cha' romuluSngan ghom tu'lu'.
>
> ghaytan qaSbogh DuH 'ang mu'tlheghvam ngaSbogh lut'e' 'e' vIyaj. 'a
> law'bogh yajmeH DuH vIjunmeH, bI'reS {-'eghmoH} lo' vIqelpu'.

I know you WANT to talk about *-'egh + -moH,* but I believe you've 
exhausted the available information. You can do it easily without an 
object: *jIquv'eghmoH*/I honor myself./ There is only slim evidence that 
you can do it with an object, and exactly how that works is unclear, 
assuming it's not an error in the first place. You are looking for a way 
to justify what you want it to mean rather than looking to see whether 
it actually means that.

Having run out of evidence to examine, and finding that evidence to be 
insufficient to draw any conclusions, I advocate assuming that it 
DOESN'T work and translating according to that assumption. My 
translation follows that line of thought. If further evidence comes to 
light later, we can reevaluate.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200918/09ee3c47/attachment-0016.htm>