[99464] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Sweets
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Thu Sep 4 21:13:42 2014
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmIttI7wI7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFK8js2=F7GYvOG=SAcQMY+iQcoKTHvF6fxBSKqwJxkdTKBkAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 21:13:23 -0400
To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
How about {naHlet ngaSbogh yuch} or {naHlet So'bogh yuch}?
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Fiat Knox <fiat_knox@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> puq Soj - sweets
>> We already have leng Soj from KGT, but "puq Soj" seems more appropriate for
>> this show.
>
> Is the word "sweets" culturally associated specifically with kids'
> food in the UK? I too think first of a children's menu. If it were me,
> I'd just call it {yuch} and be done with it.
>
>> naHlet yuch - chocolate (covered) nuts
>> naHHom yuch - chocolate (covered) raisins
>
> I am more inclined to put the words in the other order. To me, {naHlet
> yuch} is a kind of chocolate associated with nuts (my first impression
> is actually Nutella). On the other hand, {yuch naHlet} is a nut,
> perhaps made from or coated with chocolate. Getting fancier, {yuch yub
> naHlet} seems likely to evoke the right idea.
>
> Raisins aren't {naHHom} in my mind; that would be more like a berry.
> {ghIrep QaD} might be a good way to refer to raisins.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
