tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 27 09:22:30 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: "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?
> 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...


Back to archive top level