SuStel:

bIH jatlhlaHbe' vay'. naQbe' bIH.

naQbe'a' bIH ?!?!? hmm.. ngoDvam vISovbe'. Daj.. vaj, qaghel vIneH. quenya tlhIngan Hol je DI*compare*chugh, vaj *more complete*'a' tlhIngan Hol ? qunnoq On 30 Jul 2017 9:14 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/30/2017 7:54 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

SuStel jupwI',

'op wen, qaghel: tlhIngan Hol quenya ghap. Hol DamaSbogh yIngu'. 'a ngugh bIjangQo'. bIjangQo', 'ej 'e' vIvuv.

'a qaStaHvIS jar law', jISIv.. nuq 'oH SuStel Hol qaq'e' ? tlhIngan Hol ? quenya ? qaStaHvIS ram Hoch, QongDaqwIjDaq jIQot, 'ej jIQonglaHbe'taHvIS jIghel'eghtaH..

nuq 'oH SuStel Hol qaq'e' ? nuq 'oH SuStel Hol qaq'e' ? nuq 'oH SuStel Hol qaq'e' ?

vaj, jISovnIS ! qaqoy' ! jISovnIS.. choja'Qo'chugh vaj jImaw'choH !

'IH *Sindarin Quenya* je 'ach bIH jatlhlaHbe' vay'. naQbe' bIH.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

SuStel:

choH Hol 'e' HaDmeH, lutmey ghItlhmey je HaD.

Does this mean "language changes; in order to study that, stories and manuscripts he studied" ? On 30 Jul 2017 10:00 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/30/2017 2:29 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

SuStel:

...

bIH jatlhlaHbe' vay'. naQbe' bIH.

naQbe'a' bIH ?!?!? hmm.. ngoDvam vISovbe'. Daj..

vaj, qaghel vIneH. quenya tlhIngan Hol je DI*compare*chugh, vaj *more complete*'a' tlhIngan Hol ?

jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS. mu' mung qun je HaDmeH Quenya naQ law' tlhIngan Hol naQ puS.

Philologist ghaH Tolkien'e'. choH Hol 'e' HaDmeH, lutmey ghItlhmey je HaD. mu' mung HaD. Holmey 'oghtaHvIS, qunDaj 'oghtaH je. Sindarin mojmeH Quenya mIwmey 'oghchu'.

HolDaj qun 'oghmeH HolDaj jatlhwI'pu' 'oghnIS. Elf qun qon. vaj Silmarillion qon. qontaHvIS, Dochmey pongmeH, Elf pongmey 'ogh. vaj DIp law' ghaj HolmeyDaj.

'ach not HolmeyDaj naQmoHpu'. Hol wIjatlhlaHbogh 'ogh 'e' Hechbe'. naQbe' pab; naQbe' mu' tetlh. pab Sovlu'bogh yajlu'chu'be'. 'ej Heghpu'mo' Tolkien, SachlaHbe' HolDaj.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

SuStel:

jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS

SuStel let me ask you.. At this sentence, the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol} is a {meH}ed noun, something like {QongmeH Duj} ? Or does it mean "in order that klingon speaks a lot..", which sounds somewhat strange ? Or is it rather "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more complete than quenya" ? qunnoq On 31 Jul 2017 4:35 am, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/30/2017 3:30 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

SuStel:

...

choH Hol 'e' HaDmeH, lutmey ghItlhmey je HaD.

Does this mean "language changes; in order to study that, stories and manuscripts he studied" ?

Yes. Stated colloquially, it says *To study languages changing, he studies stories and manuscripts.*

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

And thinking this further, I could understand the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol} as a {meH}ed noun, as such: QongmeH Duj = sleeper ship or ship of sleeping ghojmeH taj = learning knife or knife of learning So.. jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol = spoken klingon or klingon of speaking. However the presence of {-qu'} somehow confuses me. If the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol} is indeed a {meH}ed noun, then how does the presence of {-qu'} alter the meaning ? qunnoq On 31 Jul 2017 3:48 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

And if it is a {meH}ed noun, then what does it mean exactly ? "spoken klingon" ?

qunnoq

On 31 Jul 2017 3:38 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

SuStel:

...

jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS

SuStel let me ask you.. At this sentence, the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol} is a {meH}ed noun, something like {QongmeH Duj} ?

Or does it mean "in order that klingon speaks a lot..", which sounds somewhat strange ?

Or is it rather "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more complete than quenya" ?

qunnoq

On 31 Jul 2017 4:35 am, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

...

On 7/30/2017 3:30 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

SuStel:

...

choH Hol 'e' HaDmeH, lutmey ghItlhmey je HaD.

Does this mean "language changes; in order to study that, stories and manuscripts he studied" ?

Yes. Stated colloquially, it says *To study languages changing, he studies stories and manuscripts.*

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

SuStel:

jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS jIH: Or is it rather "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more complete than quenya" ? SuStel My intention was is the last one

Perhaps the reason of my confusion, becomes clearer now. If instead of {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS}, we had {jatlhqu'lu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS} meaning "in order for someone to speak..", then I could have understood the meaning better. Reading the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS} and understanding "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more complete than quenya", I begun to wonder who the "he/they" was/were. Let alone that I did the mistake of thinking that the {tlhIngan Hol} was part of the {meH}ed construction, as opposed to the law'/puS construction. qunnoq On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:35 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/31/2017 8:38 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

SuStel:

...

jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS

SuStel let me ask you.. At this sentence, the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol} is a {meH}ed noun, something like {QongmeH Duj} ?

Or does it mean "in order that klingon speaks a lot..", which sounds somewhat strange ?

Or is it rather "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more complete than quenya" ?

My intention was is the last one, though remember, -qu' doesn't only mean a lot, it also (and perhaps primarily) intensifies the element it's attached to. I intended the intensification. For SPEAKING (as opposed to something else) Klingon is more complete than Quenya. The something else is described in the next sentence: mu' mung qun je HaDmeH for studying word origin and history.

If you interpreted jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol as a -meH'd noun (I did not intend that), you'd still get more less the same meaning. Klingon for SPEAKING (as opposed to something else) is more complete than Quenya. The -qu' wouldn't mean quite what I wanted, though, since I wasn't comparing Klingon for speaking with Klingon for studying word origins; I was comparing Klingon versus Quenya for speaking and Klingon versus Quenya for word origins.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

*ja'chuqghachraj vIlaDtaHvIS jIghel vIneHchoH je, 'ach pab bopmo' DIvI' Hol vIqaq. toH...* SuStel, you used *-qu'* on *jatlh* to express not intensity of the action or state the verb is describing (e.g. "speak a lot" or "speak loudly" or "speak really well" which would have been possible interpretations for me), but as an emphasis marker, like SPEAKING (as opposed to anything else), sort of like topicalizing a verb. Is there canonical evidence for this usage? I'm currently in Myanmar and didn't bring my TKD, so I can't check it easily now. But this usage strikes me as odd. Usually so-called "intensifiers" cannot do this in languages, but I don't know how Okrand described *-qu'* exactly. *mIyamavo' qavan*, - André P.S.: *Do'Ha' naQbe' Sindarin Hol Quenya Hol je. jIQochbe'. Esperanto Hol tlhIngan Hol je vIjatlhlaH. 'opleS latlh Hol 'oghlu'ta'bogh vIghojchugh, vaj Na'vi Hol vIwIv. muvuQqu' pabDaj! * On 31 Jul 2017 21:06, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/31/2017 10:20 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

SuStel:

jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS

jIH:

Or is it rather "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more complete than quenya" ?

SuStel

My intention was is the last one

Perhaps the reason of my confusion, becomes clearer now. If instead of {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS}, we had {jatlhqu'lu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS} meaning "in order for someone to speak..", then I could have understood the meaning better. Reading the {jatlhqu'meH tlhIngan Hol naQ law' Quenya naQ puS} and understanding "in order that he/they speaks/speak a lot, klingon is more complete than quenya", I begun to wonder who the "he/they" was/were. Let alone that I did the mistake of thinking that the {tlhIngan Hol} was part of the {meH}ed construction, as opposed to the law'/puS construction.

I'm not sure that would have helped. You weren't interpreting *tlhIngan Hol* as the subject of *jatlhqu'meH;* you were interpreting it as the head noun of *jatlhqu'meH.* Adding a *-lu'* wouldn't have changed anything.

Klingon purpose clauses are often used in a sort of infinite way. You don't say *ghojlu'meH taj;* you say *ghojmeH taj.* A subject is not always necessary or even implied. Sometimes it is speculated that you need a subject if the purpose clause attaches to a sentence instead of a noun, but we don't really know, and no survey of canon has been done recently on that.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

SuStel:

I'm not sure that would have helped. You weren't interpreting tlhIngan Hol as the subject of jatlhqu'meH; you were interpreting it as the head noun of jatlhqu'meH. Adding a -lu' wouldn't have changed anything.

Oh yes, you're right ! Only now I understood what's happening. SuStel:

Sometimes it is speculated that you need a subject if the purpose clause attaches to a sentence instead of a noun

Because grammar terms confuse me, could you write an example of this ? qunnoq On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:12 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/31/2017 11:00 AM, André Müller wrote:

SuStel, you used -qu' on jatlh to express not intensity of the action or state the verb is describing (e.g. "speak a lot" or "speak loudly" or "speak really well" which would have been possible interpretations for me), but as an emphasis marker, like SPEAKING (as opposed to anything else), sort of like topicalizing a verb.

Is there canonical evidence for this usage? I'm currently in Myanmar and didn't bring my TKD, so I can't check it easily now. But this usage strikes me as odd. Usually so-called "intensifiers" cannot do this in languages, but I don't know how Okrand described -qu' exactly.

From TKD:

-qu' emphatic

This suffix emphasizes or affirms whatever immediately precedes it.

I'll simplify the quotation of the examples given.

yIHaghqu' study him/her well nuQaw'qu'be' they have not finished us off

The roving nature of -qu' can be seen in the following set:

pIHoHvIpbe'qu' we are NOT afraid to kill you pIHoHvIpqu'be' we are not AFRAID to kill you pIHoHqu'vIp'be' we are not afraid to KILL you

The first word above might be used after an enemy challenged the b4ravery of the speaker. The second might be followed by an explanation such as, "We are not willing to kill you because we require your services." The third word would be used to emphasize killing, as opposed to some other form of punishment.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Some more examples of {-qu’} (emphatic) on action verbs (i.e. not qualities): nom yIghoSqu' Maximum speed. (ST5 notes) maHeghbejqu' It's certain death. (ST5 notes) qIrq wItlha'taHqu' Where Kirk goes, we follow. (ST5 notes) qara'qu' That's an order. (ST5 notes) naDev Dochvetlh qemqu' I really mean it this time! Bring that here! PK (pet command) tIqIpqu' 'ej nom tIqIp Hit them hard and hit them fast. TKW bIQapqu'meH tar DaSop 'e' DatIvnIS To really succeed, you must enjoy eating poison. TKW batlh maHeghbej 'ej yo' qIjDaq vavpu'ma' DImuv. pa' reH maSuvtaHqu' Then we die with honor and join our fathers in the Black Fleet where we battle forever. (Anthem) jIlujqu' I lose in a big way". KGT pInaDqu' tuqlIj wInaDqu' je Glory to you and your house. ("We praise you highly; we also praise your house highly") KGT jar DamaSqu'bogh yIngu' What/which is your favorite month? (st.k 12/12/96) ("Identify the month that you very much prefer!") laS veghaS HIltonDaq «Hov leng: yIjeSchu'» qaSchoHmo', bIlopqu'meH HIlton yIghoS Come celebrate the grand opening of “Star Trek: The Experience” at the Las Vegas Hilton. (STX) bIHeghqu' You will die well (PB 142-143) nom leng Hun nom lengqu' lut Stories travel faster than a khrun (PB 130-131) Hay'chu' luneHqu' vaj pe'vIl joqqu' cha' tlhIngan tIqDu' Both Klingon hearts beat, at their strongest, in lust for blood. (PB 167) -- Voragh From: SuStel On 7/31/2017 11:00 AM, André Müller wrote: SuStel, you used -qu' on jatlh to express not intensity of the action or state the verb is describing (e.g. "speak a lot" or "speak loudly" or "speak really well" which would have been possible interpretations for me), but as an emphasis marker, like SPEAKING (as opposed to anything else), sort of like topicalizing a verb. Is there canonical evidence for this usage? I'm currently in Myanmar and didn't bring my TKD, so I can't check it easily now. But this usage strikes me as odd. Usually so-called "intensifiers" cannot do this in languages, but I don't know how Okrand described -qu' exactly. From TKD: -qu' emphatic This suffix emphasizes or affirms whatever immediately precedes it. I'll simplify the quotation of the examples given. yIHaghqu' study him/her well nuQaw'qu'be' they have not finished us off The roving nature of -qu' can be seen in the following set: pIHoHvIpbe'qu' we are NOT afraid to kill you pIHoHvIpqu'be' we are not AFRAID to kill you pIHoHqu'vIp'be' we are not afraid to KILL you The first word above might be used after an enemy challenged the b4ravery of the speaker. The second might be followed by an explanation such as, "We are not willing to kill you because we require your services." The third word would be used to emphasize killing, as opposed to some other form of punishment. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1 August 2017 at 00:17, Jeremy Silver <jp.silver@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

On Monday, 31 July 2017 16:31:14 BST Steven Boozer wrote:

...

laS veghaS HIltonDaq «Hov leng: yIjeSchu'» qaSchoHmo', bIlopqu'meH HIlton yIghoS Come celebrate the grand opening of “Star Trek: The Experience” at the Las Vegas Hilton. (STX)

Thanks for reminding us of this example.

I've recently been trying to work out a way to express the quote: "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon."

While {DuQ} is said to apply to good food or music, I think poetic license may allow it to apply to literature also. "You haven't been stabbed by Shakespeare until he's stabbed you in the original Klingon..."

I threw together a couple of ways, which I'm not sure about: {SeQpIr Daleghchu'be'pu', mung tlhIngan HolDajDaq ghaH DalaDpu'pa'.} {SeQpIr Daleghchu' neH, mung tlhIngan HolDajDaq ghaH DalaDDI'.}

I don't think {legh} has the sense of "experience". I'd use {SIQ}. (While "endure, bear" seem to have negative connotations in English, {SIQ} seems neutral or even positive for Klingons.)

And now I'm reminded of this STE communique, I've given it another go with {jeS}: {SeQpIr DalaDtaHvIS bIjeSchu'be', mung tlhIngan HolDajDaq ghaH DalaDpu'pa'.}

I'm fairly sure I've made a few errors with those. So if anyone has pointers as to how to go about recasting/correcting one, I'd appreciate it.

Are there more examples of {jeS} in use?

There are the example sentences from the Saarbrücken qepHom in 2016: qaStaHvIS qepHom jIjeS. qaS qepHom 'ej jIjeS. qaS qepHom vaj jIjeS. -- De'vID

On 8/1/2017 3:16 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

Jeremy Silver:

...

{SeQpIr Daleghchu'be'pu', mung tlhIngan HolDajDaq ghaH DalaDpu'pa'.} Since klingon vocabulary is perceived to be the literal and not metaphoric meaning of its word,

That's not right. Idioms often don't translate between languages, and since Klingon is unrelated to any Earth language there's no chance that idioms in one are also idioms in the other (unless there's borrowing). But Klingon can employ metaphors just fine, and KGT gives us a whole host of idioms, similes, and slang.

I don't think that {legh} can be used to express "experience" as in "I experience SeQpIr". Reading this part of the sentence would make me understand "you haven't seen SeQpIr in the flesh unless..".

I agree that mixing /seeing/ Shakespeare and /reading/ Shakespeare is inappropriate. Someone else suggested *SIQ* /endure,/ and in this case that might be a good choice.

The costruction {mung tlhIngan HolDajDaq} has two problems:

1. The literal translation is "at his klingon language of origin", which I'm not quite sure it sounds well/nice. Of course, this might be just a matter of personal preference. However, I would rather go with {tlhIngan Hol wa'DIch}. Since in Klingon monopoly we have {Quj wa'DIch} to refer to the original monopoly game, then I believe it would fit here too, quite nicely.

Actually, *mung tlhIngan Hol *means /origin Klingon,/ which does not mean /original Klingon./ I'm not sure I know what it really means. I wouldn't choose *tlhIngan Hol wa'DIch*/first Klingon/ for this either. I'd employ a verb for this, something like *qonDI' tlhIngan Hol lo'*/when he wrote it he used Klingon./

2. And this is the major problem. The {-Daq} can only be used to refer to physical locations. If you would like to use it anyway, perhaps you could say something like {tlhIngan wa'DIch ghItlhDaq} for "at the manuscript of the original klingon".

This is correct.

Jeremy Silver:

...

{SeQpIr Daleghchu' neH, mung tlhIngan HolDajDaq ghaH DalaDDI'.} The problem here is that when we use {neH} on a verb, the meaning isn't "only". The meaning is "merely". So, the meaning here would be "you will merely see perfectly SeQpIr", and not "you will only see perfectly SeQpIr".

So when are you going to sign up for the job of Beginners' Grammarian? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 8/1/2017 8:01 AM, Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:49 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

Idioms often don't translate between languages, and since Klingon is unrelated to any Earth language there's no chance that idioms in one are also idioms in the other (unless there's borrowing).

I understand your intention here but I think you're overstating the case. In part, because such an occurrence would be the very definition of "chance" but also because idioms emerge out of behavior and observation and Terrans and Klingons engage in quite a few parallel behaviors. Consider for a moment the many idioms we have for vomiting. This behavior is common ground and I would not be surprised to find a Klingon variant of "he tossed his cookies" that would be readily understandable as figurative language, without need to appeal to "borrowing."

Oh sure, Klingon will sometimes have idioms for things that English has idioms for. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Klingon had an idiom equivalent to English /he tossed his cookies,/ but I would be VERY surprised if that idiom were *chabDaj woD.* Let me amend my statement to say that idioms often don't translate LITERALLY between languages. You can translate an idiom by selecting an equivalent idiom in the target language, but not by translating the source idiom word for word. But if you don't have an equivalent idiom in the target language, then you have to find the literal meaning of the idiom and translate that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

Other work-arounds: {tlhIngan Hol teH} “true Klingon” might work, although it’s not the same thing. Cf. however {teH tIghmey} in the {bI’reS} to the paq’batlh: naDev Sughompu' 'ej Qo'noS SuvwI'pu' Hem tlhIH qeylIS tIghmey'e' DaH tIQoy teH tIghmey 'ej bIH bolIjlaHbe' Here now, All of you here Proud warriors of Kronos The ways of Kahless For they are true And unforgettable Also {tlhIngan Hol tIQ[qu’]} “[very] ancient Klingon} or {tlhIngan Hol lutlh} “primitive Klingon”. All in all, {tlhIngan Holna’} “authentic Klingon” might just be the simplest. It certainly gets General Chang’s point across. --Voragh On 8/1/2017 3:16 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: Jeremy Silver: "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon."

{SeQpIr Daleghchu'be'pu', mung tlhIngan HolDajDaq ghaH DalaDpu'pa'.} […] The construction {mung tlhIngan HolDajDaq} has two problems: 1. The literal translation is "at his klingon language of origin", which I'm not quite sure it sounds well/nice. Of course, this might be just a matter of personal preference. However, I would rather go with {tlhIngan Hol wa'DIch}. Since in Klingon monopoly we have {Quj wa'DIch} to refer to the original monopoly game, then I believe it would fit here too, quite nicely. Actually, mung tlhIngan Hol means origin Klingon, which does not mean original Klingon. I'm not sure I know what it really means. I wouldn't choose tlhIngan Hol wa'DIch first Klingon for this either. I'd employ a verb for this, something like qonDI' tlhIngan Hol lo' when he wrote it he used Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

Thanks for all the replies. After a fair amount of time (read most of the day) trying all the different combinations I could think of, for the text to place between the {SeQpIr DalaDtaHvIS bIjeSchu'be',} and the {DalaDpu'pa'.} When I realised I was putting together long noun-phrases again (a sure sign I'm doing it wrong) I tried various options like: {ghItlhDaj Hol wa'DIch mu'mey} with a {tlhIngan Hol 'oH Holvam'e'.} appended after that sentence. or maybe: {tlhIngan Hol lo'taHvIS ghItlh qonpu'bogh} But those were a bit long-winded, so maybe: {tlhIngan Hol ghItlh qonpu'bogh} or maybe I'll finally settle on: {qonDI' tlhIngan Hol mu'mey lo'bogh}. Any preferences or interpretation / grammar errors? DaH HolDaj wa'DIch 'op mu'mey'e' qonpu'bogh SeQpIr vImuch: wa'leS, wa'leS, wa'leS, wa'leS'e' je; jajvo' jajDaq QIt Do ramqu' lengtaH, poH mu' Qav'e' qonlu'pu'bogh ghoStaH. 'ej qoHpu' wovmoHpu' Hoch wa'Hu'meymaj, Hegh lam ghoSDI'. yIHegh, yIHegh, weQ ngaj. yItbogh QIb 'oH neH yIn'e'. DawI' Do'Ha'; muchmeH ravDaq repDaj HemwI' Dabogh rejmorgh. 'ej ghIq, not Qoyqa'lu'. lut'e' 'oH. 'oH ja'pu' qoH. 'oH buy'moH QeH, wab je. 'ach pagh 'oS 'oH.