SuStel:

> nIbe'HalmoH also seems a poor

> substitute for fail you. Maybe reH luj

> DuboQbogh nuv people who assist you

> will always fail. Or maybe he's saying the

> strength of others will always fail you:

> reH SoHvaD luj latlh HoS the strength of

> others will always fail for you.

I didn't like the {belHa'} too.. But when I thought of using the {luj} I wondered whether its' "fail" meaning is of the "not win" kind, or of the "I failed you" kind. I didn't know the answer, so I went with the inferior - for the occasion - {belHa'}.

klingonska.org/canon/1993-12-holqed-02-4.txt

"The opposite notion [of Qap, meaning both win and function], 'lose,' is commonly luj, also meaning 'fail.'"

luj means both of these things. Qap means both win and function, because, we are told, "To a Klingon, to win is to function perfectly." luj is the opposite of Qap.

jIH:

> juppu', qorDu', latlh negh.. tagha' nIteb

> SIQnIS nuv.

SuStel:

> I'd go with tagha' nIteb SIQnIS Hoch nuv

> In the end, each person must endure alone

> or tagha' nIteb SIQnIS nuv tlhIn In the

> end, an individual person must endure

> alone.

You're right on using {Hoch nuv}! I forgot to double-check with the original, so I didn't see the "each person". 

But your suggestion of {nuv tlhIn} confuses me; this use of the verb {tlhIn} seems strange. Reading {nuv tlhIn} gives me the impression that there are many people, and we're talking about someone who is "attributable/particularly associated with something/someone".

It may not have been the best idea. Disregard that suggestion.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name