[tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat

[David Holt]

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.


> 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 one word translation, something like, "renderings", rather 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 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 with 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 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 ghargh HIq} from CK).  Does {'Im} work like {pub} and the thing that is rendering should be the subject?


Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170218/b3377b67/attachment-0002.htm>