tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 27 09:14:33 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 \(Jon Brown\) ( [KLI Member]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terrence Donnelly" <>
> --- On Sun, 7/26/09, 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'
> 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."
> I think you want something like "Cut up a tuber until it resembles little 
> sticks, then deep-fry it." Or maybe phrase it as a description and not a 
> command.
> When I wrote some Klingon recipes, I used the descriptive: "The cook does 
> X, then Y, etc.", figuring that Klingons don't like to be ordered around,
> even by a cookbook.
> 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.
> -- ter'eS

I'd wondered about aspect myself but wasn't sure about when -pu' or -ta' was 
appropriate. As I was using -bogh and looking at TKD 6.2.3  I'd taken the 
stance that the cutting was as accurate and aimed at a target as the hit was 
in  [qIppu'bogh yaS - officer who hit him/her] etc I started to think that 
the difference was like hitting a person and hitting a person on the nose or 
in my case cuttting the root in general stick shapes to cutting exactly... 
But maybe I'm over thinking it.


Back to archive top level