So this is what I've decided on: 'op vengmeyDaq qaSchoHpu' Daw'mey, ghIq vengmey law'Daq qaSchoHpu' je. bI'reng On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:31 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
No, I read it only as "in (a/the) city and (the) cities", which is redundant.
What's wrong with {ngIq veng}?
1. The canon examples of {ngIq} only give a rough idea of its precise usage, so...
2. I only risk {ngIq} when I'm confident what I'm saying fits one of the canon examples. I don't thank that's the case here. All the examples that fit the "one after another" usage seem to imply "all of them, one at a time", like checking items of a list. I think the phrase "city after city" is less about a sequence and more about the idea that revolutions kept breaking out *everywhere.*
3. {ngIq vengDaq qaSchoHtaH Daw'mey} could mean that revolutions kept breaking out in a single city, like the Year of the Four Emperors. Or maybe the plural {Daw'mey} implies multiple cities. I'm not sure, because point number one.
But it looks like {vengDaq, vengmeyDaq je} isn't working, so I'll keep working on it.
bI'reng