tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 27 08:47:54 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'

qe'San \(Jon Brown\) (qeSan@btinternet.com) [KLI Member]



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Trimboli" <david@trimboli.name>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 2:48 AM
Subject: Re: 'oQqar pe'pu'bogh; naQHommey rur ghIq mIQpu'


> qe'San (Jon Brown) wrote:
>> What I'd like to know is, does anyone understand my following sentence:
>> 'oQqar pe'pu'bogh; naQHommey rur.  ghIq mIQpu'
>>
>> If you do what does it mean to you?
>> - is it messy or just bad use of grammar
>
> 'oQqar lupe'lu'pu'bogh
> cut tubers
>
> naQHommey means "minor sticks," whatever those are. -Hom does not mean
> "small."

Sorry I used that as the nearest canon I could locate to mean stick,
naQHom - stick (used to strike percussion intrument) pg 220 KGT.
I try to stear clear of -Hom but as a plain naQ is a spear/staff and we had
the naQHom in KGT I thought it safe-ish.

>> 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?
>
> 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.

I had just wanted a word for, chips (UK)/fries (US) but as expected there
wasn't a word so I thought I try a description which sort of came out more
like a preparation intruction

to me I thought I was saying, "root cut like sticks then deep-fried"
trying to make it concise I clipped the Klingon but I see that was silly.

> 'oQqar naQ lumIQlu'pu'bogh
root's cane which is deep fried

I had played with 'oQqar naQ(Hom) but thought that could infer stick like
roots with no cutting.

> 'oQqar lupe'lu'pu'bogh 'ej lumIQlu'pu'bogh
root which is cut and which is deep-fried

As -bogh is on both verbs making this a noun and noun construction wouldn't
the "and" be {je} and follow both e.g:

    'oQqar lupe'lu'pu'bogh lumIQlu'pu'bogh je

I'd attempted the rur type construction as I had thought cut root could
imply chips (US)/crisps (UK) but then didn't know how a rur contruction
could be used .

As this example doesn't use a rur contruction couldn't the relative clause
just avoid the use of 'ej/je altogether

    'oQqar lupe'lu'pe'bogh lumIQlu'pu'  - Deep-fried root which is cut

Thinking again about the use of naQ or confusion with naQHom maybe if I said
cut like/resembling fingers it would be better and nearer..

    'oQqar lupe'lu'pu'bogh; nItlhDu' rur.  - root cut like fingers.  'ej
ghIq lumIQlu'pu' - and then (they're) deep-fried

    'oQqar lupe'lu'pu'bogh; nItlhDu' rur 'ej ghIq lumIQlu'pu'

The sort of use I was looking for was when my wife asked what I wanted with
my steak.. eg "Do you want chips(fries) or potatoes with your steak?" I
replied, "Chips please!""

So I accept as a Klingon I would posssible just say, "{xxxxx)!" or "(xxxxx)
I want it!" but I think that gives the best idea of what I was after saying.

    'oQqar lupe'lu'pu'bogh; nItlhDu' rur 'ej ghIq lumIQlu'pu' vIneH

Although using that example in reply to my wife I would use the Da- prefix 
and loose the -lu' suffixes and therefore be:

    'oQqar Dape'pu'bogh; nItlhDu' rur 'ej ghIq DamIQpu' vIneH

Is that close at all?

Thanks again this is really helpful

qe'San

> -- 
> SuStel
> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> http://trimboli.name/mush
>








Back to archive top level