tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 27 08:27:56 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: 'oQqar pe'pu'bogh; naQHommey rur ghIq mIQpu'

Steven Boozer (

qe'San (Jon Brown) wrote:
>>> [...] does anyone understand my following sentence:
>>>    'oQqar pe'pu'bogh; naQHommey rur.  ghIq mIQpu'
>>> If it's just nonsense
>>> - let me know and I'll say what I was trying to describe/mean.
>>> - although did you at least get the gist of what I meant?

>>   'oQqar lupe'lu'pu'bogh
>>   cut tubers
>> naQHommey means "minor sticks," whatever those are. -Hom does not mean "small."
>> I know what you meant, but I don't know if you meant it as a sentence, a noun phrase, or >> something else. Pick one.
>>   'oQqar naQ lumIQlu'pu'bogh
>>   'oQqar lupe'lu'pu'bogh 'ej lumIQlu'pu'bogh

>At first glance, the phrase {'oQqar pe'(lu')pu'bogh} seems mis-placed and
>has no grammatical connection to the following: "cut-up tuber; it
>resembles sticks."
>  [....]
>Also, I don't think you need the {-pu'} suffixes. Presumably, the tuber
>was cut up on purpose, so you could use {-ta'} on the first verb. I don't
>think you need any suffix on the second.

Actually, you don't need any aspect suffix at all.  We have a culinary example from "Power Klingon":

  to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh tIlaj 
  Accept these stuffed tobbaj legs! PK

  Ho'Du'lIjDaq to'baj 'uSHom lughoDlu'bogh tu'lu' 
  You have some stuffed tobbaj leg in your teeth. PK

Presumably nobody ever prepares or eats just one! <g>  Note BTW the use of {-Hom} for a chunk or piece of stuffed tobbaj leg.  AFAIK this usage is unique.

As a definition, qe'San and SuStel's versions work, but they are a bit wordy.  I might call them {'oQqar naQ(Hom)mey lumIQlu'bogh} "(deep-fried tuber stick(let)s" or just {'oQqar naQ(Hom)mey} "tuber stick(let)s" for short.

Canon Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level