[86315] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: 'oQqar pe'pu'bogh; naQHommey rur ghIq mIQpu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qe'San \(Jon Brown\))
Mon Jul 27 12:14:51 2009
From: "qe'San \(Jon Brown\)" <qeSan@btinternet.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:13:32 +0100
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrence Donnelly" <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
>
> --- On Sun, 7/26/09, qe'San (Jon Brown) <qeSan@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> What I'd like to know is, does anyone
>> understand my following sentence:
>> 'oQqar pe'pu'bogh; naQHommey rur. ghIq mIQpu'
>>
>
> 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."
>
> I think you want something like "Cut up a tuber until it resembles little
> sticks, then deep-fry it." Or maybe phrase it as a description and not a
> command.
> When I wrote some Klingon recipes, I used the descriptive: "The cook does
> X, then Y, etc.", figuring that Klingons don't like to be ordered around,
> even by a cookbook.
>
> 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.
> -- ter'eS
I'd wondered about aspect myself but wasn't sure about when -pu' or -ta' was
appropriate. As I was using -bogh and looking at TKD 6.2.3 I'd taken the
stance that the cutting was as accurate and aimed at a target as the hit was
in [qIppu'bogh yaS - officer who hit him/her] etc I started to think that
the difference was like hitting a person and hitting a person on the nose or
in my case cuttting the root in general stick shapes to cutting exactly...
But maybe I'm over thinking it.
qe'San
