tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 27 14:40:16 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>


> qe'San (Jon Brown) wrote:
>> From: "David Trimboli" <david@trimboli.name>
>  >
>>> 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'
>>>>
[...]
>>
>> 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.


Thank you I had not known of the sub type for general use apart from where
MO had used it. Because I'd thought I wasn't allowed to make that assumption
I would only use my own N-N construction if I could stick with N2 of N1 or
N1's N2. With regard to tlhIngan Hol,  I'd always seen it as Klingon's
Language, Language of Klingon.
Aside from this thread that is useful to know.

>>> 'oQqar lupe'lu'pu'bogh 'ej lumIQlu'pu'bogh
>>> root which is cut and which is deep-fried
>>
>> [.. ..]
>> 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}?

My error. I just assumed that cut root was not suffiently descriptive so
thought cut like sticks or even fingers would be needed for someone else to
know I didn't mean US chips/UK crisps.

>> 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.

I was thinking if I couldn't get by with anything less than a complete
sentence then I could at least use that with things like "I want that" or
answers to "what is that?"

>> 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."

I'm not sure what's wrong there or do you mean that I am saying "roots that
resemble fingers are cut"?  If that's so I agree that is not what I want.

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

Sorry I wasn't sure what to call it... I've just used construction to mean
the collection of words I've put together

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

qatlho'

>>     '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?

In a sense that is what I meant i.e the cut root resemble fingers and then
they're fried but I think I understand that I've got the priciple of
similies wrong with what else you've said above.

DaH jIyajlaw'

> It's still not a
> noun phrase, and they don't stop resembling fingers after you deep-fry
> them.

That is the nature of fries/chips.

>> 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...

jIQochbe'    ;-)

qe'San 







Back to archive top level