[109033] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Holt)
Sat Feb 18 14:19:32 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:19:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <32fd71a8-5944-ca5a-becf-77bea225747f@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============6636068089510482463==
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_DM5PR16MB1820AAE37B110AC20E555CAEA45C0DM5PR16MB1820namp_"
--_000_DM5PR16MB1820AAE37B110AC20E555CAEA45C0DM5PR16MB1820namp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I should have laid out the problem more fully and more accurately, but I wa=
s in a hurry at the time I wrote this and wanted to get the conversation st=
arted.
> Clearly, the correct phrase is tlhagh 'Imlu'pu'bogh rendered fat. I'm not
> sure why this is supposed to be unwieldy; Okrand has used this sort of
> formation a number of times. Soj vutlu'pu'bogh food that somebody has
> prepared as opposed to Soj tlhol raw, unprocessed food; boqrat chej
> Qevlu'pu'bogh stewed bokrat liver; pIpyuS pach HaHlu'pu'bogh
> marinated pipius claw (all from KGT); to'baj 'uSHom lughoDlu'bogh stuffed=
tobaj leg (PK).
In my haste I misspoke. It is not so unwieldy. I was just hoping for a on=
e word translation, something like, "renderings", rather than "rendered fat=
". But a two word solution is fine. I don't see it as unreasonable that s=
ince with {-lu'} the object gets promoted to subject in the prefix, that th=
en the {-wI'} might pick up on that and also promote the object to subject.=
But I also understand that we have no reason to believe that might happen=
and as much as I hoped that I could do that in this situation, I'm fine wi=
th being told it's taking it too far.
On the other hand, I'm not sure it is so clear that {tlhagh} is the object =
of {'Im}. KGT says, "the general word for "boil" is {pub}, but the verb us=
ed specifically to refer to the boiling of fat is {'Im} ["render"]." Howev=
er, I believe the only example we have of {pub} uses the thing being boiled=
as the subject ({pubtaHbogh ghargh HIq} from CK). Does {'Im} work like {p=
ub} and the thing that is rendering should be the subject?
Jeremy
--_000_DM5PR16MB1820AAE37B110AC20E555CAEA45C0DM5PR16MB1820namp_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margi=
n-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font=
-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir=3D"ltr">
<p>I should have laid out the problem more fully and more accurately, but I=
was in a hurry at the time I wrote this and wanted to get the conversation=
started.</p>
<br>
<div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div>
<p>> Clearly, the correct phrase is <b>tlhagh 'Imlu'pu'bogh</b><i> =
rendered fat.</i> I'm not</p>
<p>> sure why this is supposed to be unwieldy; Okrand has used this=
sort of</p>
<p>> formation a number of times. <b>Soj vutlu'pu'bogh</b><i> food =
that somebody has</i></p>
<p><i>> prepared</i> as opposed to <b>Soj tlhol</b><i> raw, unproce=
ssed food;</i><b> boqrat chej</b></p>
<p><b>> Qevlu'pu'bogh</b><i> stewed bokrat liver;</i> <b>pIpyuS pac=
h HaHlu'pu'bogh</b></p>
<p><b></b><i>> marinated pipius claw </i>(all from KGT);<b> to'baj =
'uSHom lughoDlu'bogh</b><i> stuffed tobaj leg
</i>(PK).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>In my haste I misspoke. It is not so unwieldy. I was just ho=
ping for a one word translation, something like, "renderings", ra=
ther than "rendered fat". But a two word solution is fine. =
I don't see it as unreasonable that since with {-lu'} the object gets
promoted to subject in the prefix, that then the {-wI'} might pick up on t=
hat and also promote the object to subject. But I also understand tha=
t we have no reason to believe that might happen and as much as I hoped tha=
t I could do that in this situation,
I'm fine with being told it's taking it too far.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, I'm not sure it is so clear that {tlhagh} is the obje=
ct of {'Im}. KGT says, "the general word for "boil" is=
{pub}, but the verb used specifically to refer to the boiling of fat is {'=
Im} ["render"]." However, I believe the only example
we have of {pub} uses the thing being boiled as the subject ({pubtaHbogh g=
hargh HIq} from CK). Does {'Im} work like {pub} and the thing that is=
rendering should be the subject?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Jeremy</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_DM5PR16MB1820AAE37B110AC20E555CAEA45C0DM5PR16MB1820namp_--
--===============6636068089510482463==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============6636068089510482463==--
