[tlhIngan Hol] naH in fruit names 'oQqar in vegetable names

[Will Martin]

I was recently reflecting on why, in English, it’s “tuna” if it’s a fillet, but it’s “tuna fish” if it’s in a can.

Likely, the word pairs you have pointed out are arbitrary, and possibly dialectic. It could be that the pair of words is not a necessity. All we really know is that the pairs we see in canon are right. Non-canon versions might be right or they might be wrong. If you want to know that you are right, stick to canon.

It’s easy to make up stories to explain the differences. Maybe {naH} refers to the above-ground parts of a plant, while {‘oQqar} is the below ground part, and plants that either have Klingon equivalents or have become adopted to grow on Qo’noS use the two-word version because Klingons are familiar with the whole plants and use the second word to differentiate the part of the plant we eat, while plants that NEVER are grown there only appear as imports in food markets, so Klingons have no idea what the plant is like. They only know the food item, so you don’t need the second word to qualify it.

But that’s just my story. It’s not canon, and it’s probably not right. Still, it would explain the differences among these food terms.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Jul 24, 2020, at 8:29 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 'epIl naH
> ghIrep naH
> Sutra'ber naH
> 
> but..
> 
> tera' na'ran
> tera' na'ran'a'
> tanje'rIn
> 
> and..
> 
> 'anyan 'oQqar
> gharlIq 'oQqar
> 
> andl let's not forget
> 
> tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHom
> 
> With regards to the fruits, I can't understand the rationale by which
> some fruits have the {naH} and some don't. Does this mean that while
> we can say {tanje'rInmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, we can't just say {'epIlmey
> Soppu' qeSHoS} ? Do we *need* to add the {naH} too, thus writing
> {'epIl naHmey Soppu' qeSHoS} ?
> 
> Similarly, if we want to say "the chef put french fries next to the steak".
> 
> Can't we just say {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat naQHommey
> lanpu' vutwI'} ? Do we *need* to add the {'oQqar} too, thus writing
> {Ha'DIbaH baylaD retlhDaq tlhagh patat 'oQqar naQHommey lanpu' vutwI'}
> ?
> 
> ~ Qa'yIn
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200724/8c18a49b/attachment-0016.htm>