tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 27 11:22:55 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'

David Trimboli ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

qe'San (Jon Brown) wrote:
> From: "David Trimboli" <>
>> 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.

Okay, it looks like {naQHom} is more appropriate after all.

>>> 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.

{N1 N2} is a genitive construction. It may mean possession, or it may 
mean that N1 is a sub-type of N2. (What type of {Hol}? {tlhIngan Hol}.)

{'oQqar naQHom} could mean "the root's stick" or it could mean 
"root-stick." The correct meaning must come from context.

>> '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

Others have addressed this error.

> 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 .

Why do you need to use {rur}?

> 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

This says "cut roots are deep-fried." It is a complete sentence. You 
cannot use it as a noun phrase in another sentence.

> 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

This says, "Cut roots; they resemble fingers."

There isn't a "{rur} construction." Okrand uses {rur} for the similes in 
  KGT, but those are complete sentences, not noun phrases.

You COULD use {nItlh rurbogh 'oQqar'e' lu'pe'lu'bogh} "cut roots which 
resemble fingers."

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

cut roots; they resemble fingers and then they're deep-fried

First they resemble fingers, THEN they're deep-fried? It's still not a 
noun phrase, and they don't stop resembling fingers after you deep-fry them.

> 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!""

be'nal: chay' 'oQqarlIj vIvut? vIpe' 'ej vImIQ, pagh vIpe'be' 'ej vIpub?

SoH: tIpe' 'ej tImIQ!

You might even say {'oQqar nItlhDu'}, though that would be a 
particularly Terran extrapolation...

tlhIngan Hol MUSH

Back to archive top level