tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 27 09:22:30 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'oQqar pe'pu'bogh; naQHommey rur ghIq mIQpu'
- From: "qe'San \(Jon Brown\)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: 'oQqar pe'pu'bogh; naQHommey rur ghIq mIQpu'
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:21:27 +0100
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=1HnQMLzvcMj0f1AjGl7Yh/owWVX18s6AxIWSsS7FY8gjoqqqqhPMX2oEBjozf09gDAbQCYpwquaFZGhycq4G0MprF/qX6yb6O9fifvXn/PVs65JrX6z8JLd7pYoFUHu0DplTaDtyBjMPSSR2AY2WBt4iZyNnqaJS8jqHzPJgUtA= ;
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
> 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?
>
> SuStel:
>>> '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
>
> ter'eS:
>>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.
> --
> Voragh
> Canon Master of the Klingons
Thank you for the compliment (making the langauge work is my main aim). I
also like the simplicity of {'oQqar naQHommey lumIQlu'bogh} I accept there
is a difference between how to do something and what is enough to identify
something.. But I wouldn't want to presume...
qe'San